|F 375 
L943 

Copy 1 



^LOUISIANA AT 



k. 



ABSTRACT OF THE EVID 



OF 



k 



GOVERNOR KELLOGG'S ELHGTION IN 1872, 



FRAUDS OF THE FUSIONISTS. 



TEXT OF THE PROTOCOL AND AWARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 



I 



NEW ORLEANS : 

PRINTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE, 94 CAMP STREET. 

1875. 



\ 



THE LOUISIANA ADJUSTMENT, 



ABSTRACT OF THE EVIDENCE 



OF 



I 



AND THE 



FRAUDS OF THE F UNIONISTS. 



TEXT OF THE PROTOCOL AND AWARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 









NEW ORLEANS : 

PRINTED AT THE REPUBLICAN OFFICE, 94 CAMP 8TRBBT. 



1875. 



>*K 






THE LOUISIANA ADJUSTMENT. 






New Orleans, November 27, 1875. 

To enable our Republican friends in Congress to clearly under- 
stand all the main points involved in the Louisiana case down to its 
very latest developments, this statement has been compiled: 1 — giv- 
ing a bird's eye view of the condition of political parties in the State 
preceding and during the canvass of 1872; 2 — showing the relative 
strength and popularity of the two candidates for Governor, Kel- 
logg and McEnery; 3 — giving a synopsis of the leading frauds 
perpetrated by the "Warmoth officials in forging, changing and 
suppressing the returns of the votes actually cast, so as to make it 
appear that McEnery and not Kellogg had been elected; 4 — insti- 
tuting a comparison of the vote of 1872 with the vote of 1874, 
showing by the figures, even as claimed by the Democrats them- 
selves, Kellogg's election in 1872; 5 — giving a recital of the 
persistent efforts made by Kellogg to have the returns fairly can- 
vassed, and McEnery's equally persistent refusals and evasions; 
6 — narrating a history of the rise and progress of adjustment, text 
of the protocol agreed to and all that it implies, and, 7 — showing 
that McEnery and the Democratic party, State and National, are 
estopped by the terms of that protocol and the award made there- 
under from any further prosecution of their claims as against the 
present State Government, " known as the Kellogg Government." 

ATTITUDE OF PARTIES IN 1872. 

The relative position of political parties in the presidential and 
State elections in 1872 will be best explained by the following brief 
summary of political movements. Early in the campaign two con- 
ventions were called to meet in the city of New Orleans. One was con- 
vened by the Democrats, and after a turbulent session, nominated 
John McEnery, of Monroe, for Governor. The other convention took 
the name of Reformers, and was composed for the most part of old 
Whigs, and prominent citizens opposed to the Slidell Democracy, and 



willing to subordinate party names and party considerations to the 
reform of alleged existing abuses in the State Government. This 
convention nominated for Governor George Williamson, of Shreve- 
port, a native of the State, and now United States Minister to Cen- 
tral America. In the following month Governor Warmoth, alienated 
from the Republican party, and determined to cast in his lot with 
the opposition, convened a so-called " Liberal '' convention, which 
met in New Orleans, and nominated D. B. Penn for Governor. The 
regular Republican convention then met at Baton Rouge, and nom- 
inated Wm. P. Kellogg, for Governor. He was regarded as the 
most available candidate, by reason of his record in the United 
States Senate, in procuring the passage of several measures deemed 
of the highest importance to the State — notably the Texas 
Pacific Railroad, the Mexican Steamship Subsidy bill, and the 
appropriation for removing the Red river raft — all very popular 
measures. His efforts in the Senate in procuring the passage of the 
amendment to the Enforcement bill, during the latter part of the 
session of 1872, made him especially strong with his party in the 
State. So strong was the feeling in his favor at that time, that a 
committee of the reform party proceeded to Baton Rouge and 
assisted in procuring the nomination of Mr. Kellogg, and in over- 
coming his well known reluctance to accept the nomination. Sub- 
sequently a portion of the Republican party nominated P. B. S. 
Pinchback for Governor. From first to last, therefore, there were 
five gubernatorial tickets placed in the field. As the campaign pro- 
gressed, however, these five candidates were reduced to two, be- 
tween whom the issue was ultimately decided. The Democrats and 
Warmoth Liberals united, and formed a ticket called the Fusion 
ticket, with McBnery for Governor, and Penn for Lieutenant Gov- 
ernor. Mr. Pinchback withdrew his claims in favor of Mr. Kellogg, 
and accepted the nomination for Congressman at large on the regu- 
lar Republican ticket. The Reform ticket was withdrawn, and Mr. 
Williamson, the head of that ticket, published the following circular 
letter, which was widely distributed all over the State: 

New Orleans, La., October 25, 1875. 

Sir: I am fully persuaded that it is impossible for us to hope for 
reform if the head of the Fusion Ticket is elected. He comes into 
office under such obligations to Gov. Warmoth and his cliques and 



5 

rings, that it will be impossible for him, in my opinion, to break loose 
from them. I say this much, although I believe him to be honest in 
all his intentions. The only chance for reform in the State is by the 
election of the Hon. Wm. P. Kellogg. He is certainly opposed to 
Gov. Warmoth and all his cliques. He is honest and intelligent, and 
has served the State ably in congress. I respectfully suggest that 
you have tickets printed to carry out this idea, or that you insert 
Mr. Kellogg's name for Governor in the ticket you vote, if this meets 
your approbation. 

Very Respectfully, GEORGE WILLIAMSON. 

When the canvass fairly opened therefore, there were but two 
candidates in the field for Governor, McEnery and Kellogg. 

EELATIVE STRENGTH OF THE CANDIDATES. 

The State was canvassed by the Republicans as it had never been 
before, Mr. Kellogg going through the entire State. He was un- 
derstood and known by all the colored people to be the candidate of 
the united Republican party. McEnery was equally well understood 
by them to be the candidate of the Democratic party proper. Mr. 
McEnery's record as a member of the lower House of the Legisla- 
ture of 1865-6 under the President Johnson regime, his participation 
in the unanimous rejection by that body of the Fourteenth Constitu- 
tional amendment, and in the passage of vagrant, labor, and other 
laws enacted by them discriminating against the colored people, was 
well known and thoroughly discussed. On the other hand some 
hundreds of the leading business men of New Orleans, and many 
planters in the country parishes openly advocated the election of Mr. 
Kellogg. The New Orleans Picayune, then professedly conducted by 
" the merchants of New Orleans," said editorially, " the nomination of 
Senator Kellogg is a source of gratification to all good citizens;" and 
the German Gazette, the only daily newspaper published in the 
German language in the southwest, whilst supporting the Greeley 
movement in National politics, advocated the election of " Kellogg 
and Penn." It was a matter of public notoriety of which Congress 
has properly taken cognizance thoughout the multiform investiga- 
tions and debates which the Louisiana question has called forth, 
that the condition of Governor Warmoth's support of McEnery 
was that McEnery as Governor should exert his executive influence 
to secure the election of Governor Warmoth to the United States 
Senate, and it is apparent throughout every investigation that Gov- 



ernor Warmoth's immense power (he holding the entire election 
machinery in his hands) was exerted principally in the direction 
towards which his individual interests pointed, namely, to secure 
the defeat of Kellogg by McEnery. Yet in every one of the numer- 
ous official and unofficial counts and recounts of the votes cast, 
made public by Governor Warmoth and his supporters, Kellogg is 
shown to have run far ahead of every other person nominated on 
the Republican ticket. 

THE FRAUDS PERPETRATED— POINTS FROM MR. FRELINGHUYSEN. 

The scope and objects of the conspiracy entered into to prevent, 
as far as Kellogg was concerned, the will of the people, as actu- 
ally recorded at the ballot boxes on the fourth of November, 1872, 
from being given practical effect to, is so ably set forth in a speech 
delivered by Hon. F. T. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, in the 
United States Senate, April 14, 1874, that some extracts from that 
address are here inserted. Mr. Frelinghuysen said: 

On the 4th of November, 1872, an election took place. It had all 
the forms of an election, registration, polls, poll-lists, ballots, returns, 
registers, supervisors, etc. There were but two candidates, McEnery 
and Kellogg. One of those two men in fact had a majority of the 
legal votes cast unless there was a tie, and then we have nothing to 
do with the case, as the constitution of Louisiana provides that in 
that event the Legislature elects. * * * * 

To ascertain who by a majority of legal votes cast is entitled to an 
office, I had supposed was a matter over which the State courts had 
jurisdiction. If for any reasons the State courts have not jurisdic- 
tion, or if so corrupt that they can not be trusted, then if we are to 
interfere we must address ourselves to the question, who was 
elected 9******* 

The moral evidence tlfat McEnery had not a majority of the legal 
votes cast, and that consequently Kellogg had, is to my mind irresist- 
ible. Warmoth had the purpose, the intent, to carry that election 
by fraud. This is apparent, and is conceded. It is notorious that 
he, elected a republican, was to give the State to the democracy, and 
as a return was to grace the United States Senate. His legisla- 
ture I understand, attempted to elect him, but this project was 
abandoned because it was thought it would interfere with the rec- 
ognition of the State government by the General Government. He 
appointed a man named Blanchard to be register. That man has 
made an affidavit. If ihe affidavit be true his character is such that 
no one can approve; if it be untrue, comment is unnecessary. Blan- 
chard appointed the supervisors in each parish or county, and the su- 
pervisor in each parish appointed three commissioners. To these 



were added three freeholders, who, with the commissioners assisted 
the supervisors of the parish in counting the votes of the precincts. 
And we see at a glance that Warmoth could cheat Kellogg, but 
that Kellogg could not cheat Warmoth or McEnery. One could 
cheat. The organization of the election throughout the whole State 
originated with and was controlled by Warmoth. It is not denied 

that Warmoth meant fraud, and that he had the power to effect it. 

******** 

It appears, then, that the McEnery party had the purpose to cheat, 
and had the organized machinery to effect their end. It looks as if, 
after all, the Republican majority was too great for them. Warmoth 
knew that it was of the first importance that he should satisfy the 
public that McEnery had a majority, and how easily he could have 
done so. Instead of maneuvering to get a facile board of canvassers, 
instead of resorting to a legislative bill, which he as governor had 
carried for six months in his pocket and signiug it so as to create 
a canvassing board that suited him, all he need to have done was to 
call in twenty honest men in the State of Louisiana, Republicans and 
Democrats, take them to the State House and there say, " Here are 
the returns; add them up in the presence of these interested parties." 
It was only a matter of addition. They could have publicly added 
them up, showed the result, and if any one standing by said "Those 
returns are false,'' all he need have done was to send to the super- 
visor of the parish whom he had appointed, and request him to 
bring the ballot-box and say, "There are the ballots; the returns are 
not false;" and if any one charged that the ballot-box had been 
stuffed or that there had been votes abstracted, all he need have done 
was to send for the poll-lists and say, "There are the poll-lists; they 
correspond with the ballots;'' and if any one charged that the poll- 
lists were false in a given precinct of such a parish, all he need have 
done was to send a justice of the peace to that parish; every man 
who had there voted had indorsed on his registration papers the 
fact that he had voted, and if a living man he could swear how he 
had voted. 

Mr. President, did not Warmoth know that investigation would 
prove his candidate not elected ? At all events, is there affirmative 
proof that McEnery was elected on which we can remove Kellogg ? 

* * * Viewt- similar in some respects to those which I have 
expressed are set forth in the report of my friend from Wisconsin; 
for he agrees with me as to the vicious character of this election: 

"A careful consideration of the testimony convinces us that, had 
the election of November last been fairly conducted and returned, 
Kellogg and his associates, and a Legislature composed of the same 
political party, would have been elected. The colored population 
of that State outnumbers the white, and in the last election the 
colored voters were almost unanimous in their support of the 
Republican ticket. Governor Warmoth, who was elected by the 
Republicans of the State in 1868, had passed into opposition, and 
held in his hands the entire machinery of the election. He appointed 
the supervisors of registration, and they appointed the commission- 



8 

ers of election. The testimony shows a systematic purpose on the 
part of those conducting the election to throw every possible diffi- 
culty in the way of the colored voters in the matter of registration. 
The polling places are not fixed by law, and at the last election they 
were purposely established by those conducting the election at 
places inconvenient of access in those parishes which were known 
to be largely Eepublican; so that, in some instances, voters had to 
travel over twenty miles to reach the polls. The election was gen- 
erally conducted in quiet, and was perhaps unusually free from 
disturbance or riot. Governor Warmoth, who was the master spirit 
in the whole proceeding, seems to have relied upon craft rather than 
violence to carry the State for McEnery. In the canvass of votes, 
which determined the McEnery government to be elected, the votes 
of several Eepublican parishes were rejected.'' 

* * * Mr. President, I further submit that, as might be 
expected from the circumstances referred to, we have nothing 
amounting to evidence that McEnery had any majority, and for 
these five reasons: First, the question has at best been only inci- 
dentally examined by the committee; second, from six out of fifty- 
eight parishes we have no returns; third, from several of the parishes 
the returns are forgeries; fourth, from one at least it is in proof by 
an eye-witness that the returns were manufactured and sworn to in 
blank before they were made; fifth, the preponderance of evidence 
is that Kellogg and not McEnery had a majority of the votes cast. 
Now I will say a word or two on each of these points. That the 
committee did not give their attention to the question whether 
Kellogg or McEnery had the majority, no matter what the resolution 
says, is manifest from an examination of the case. Their attention 
was given to the question which was the true canvassing board so 
as to determine which was the true Legislature, in order that they 
might determine whether Ray or McMillen was prima facie entitled 
to be Senator; and if you want proof that this phase of the subject 
has not been examined, you have only to look to the report. On 
the last page of the book is this testimony; one witness, Mr. Ray, 
says: 

" I desire to call the attention of the committee to a statement. At 
a suggestion made by one member of the committee yesterday, I 
examined and found, and if the committee will act as experts they 
will find that the commissioners of election in several cases in the 
parishes have their names forged to the affidavits. For instance, 
there is one from Madison parish, (exhibiting the papers) and so in 
the parish of Grant also, and in the parish of Pointe Coupee and 
the parish of East Baton Rouge, which, if the committee will exam- 
ine as experts, they will find it very evident in some cases that they 
were forged. 

" The Chairman. We will now consider the evidence in the Louis- 
iana investigation closed, as I am advised by both sides that they 
have laid all the testimony before the committee that they desire to 
present." 

It is clear that the committee did not attempt to find out what re- 



9 

turns were forged and what were not, for on the presentation of this 
controlling fact the whole testimony was closed and the report is 
based on the testimony as it then stood. Again, from six out of 
fifty-eight parishes we have no returns — Iberia, Iberville, St. James 
St. Martin, St. Tammany, Terrebonne — as appears by the certificate of 
the Forman board found on page 81 of the report. It is said that 
three of these six parishes were rejected because of violence. For- 
man says so in his testimony on the seventy-sixth page. They have 
given no evidence of the violence excepting in one case, and that is 
spread out from the six hundred and fifth to the six hundred and 
forty-first page — thirty-five pages of evidence relating to the alleged 
violence in the parish of Iberville. This was a Republican parish 
having a strong preponderance of colored votes. There were from 
seven to eight hundred white votes and three thousand colored votes 
registered. The white vote was made up, as we know, of Democrats 
and in that parish of democratic planters. To their credit be it said 
that there seems to have been no man in the parish who suited Mr. 
Warmoth as supervisor, and a Mr. Tharp was brought from New Or- 
leans and was made supervisor. The commissioners took the ballot 
boxes with the poll-lists to Plaquemines. The colored men were or- 
derly, but when voting was over they armed and followed the ballot- 
boxes to Plaquemines. They claimed the right to go into the State 
House. The sheriff prohibited them. They had a right to go in. 
We would have gone in. They, intent and in earnest, watched that 
ballot-box. When one party would grow weary others would relieve 
them, and they stood at the windows watching the boxes. 

In all the testimony of thirty-five pages there is no evidence of 
one act of violence; and that is one of the three parishes the returns 
of which were rejected because of violence. What the violence was 
in the other two parishes, they have not had the grace to give us 
one word of testimony to inform us. There was no violence. There 
was no reason that the ballots should not have been counted and 
the returns made up, excepting that it was a strong Republican 
parish. I will show presently the effect of the exclusion of these 
parishes. 

The returns from several of the parishes are forged, but they all 
go in to make up McEnery's majority, as we shall see presently. 
The Senator from Wisconsin very fairly, in a calculation with which 
I, having gone over the figures, entirely agree, makes a deduction 
for those parishes. From one of the parishes the returns were man- 
ufactured; and there my friend asks me for the evidence, and I 
will trouble the clerk to read from pages 909 and 910 of the testi- 
mony — that whioh I have marked. 
The Chief Clerk read as follows: 

State of Louisiana, Parish of Orleans, City of New Orleans. 

Personally came and appeared before me, Robert H. Shannon, 
United States commissioner in and for the district of Louisiana, 
John P. Montamat, of the city and State aforesaid, who, being duly 
sworn, doth depose and say that during the month of November, 



10 

1872, and for four years before, he was a justice of the peace for 
this parish of Orleans; that in the month aforesaid, after the elec- 
tion held in this parish for Governor and other State and parochial 
officers, " what date I can not recollect, but it was while they were 
counting the votes at the State House, at the Mechanics' Institute, 
situated on Dryades street," one Jack Wharton, also of this city and 
parish aforesaid, came to my office, situated at 33 Exchange alley, 
near Customhouse street, in this city and parish aforesaid, and request- 
ed that I should go with him in a certain place in this city of New 
Orleans, in order to administer the oath to one of the supervisors of 
election in and for the parish of Madison. At said request I went 
with Jack Wharton, who took me in a house situated on Gravier 
street, somewhere near Baronne street; the entry-doors were closed, 
and at the signal given by Jack Wharton, (three consecutive and 
hard raps, ) the doors were opened. In the said room I saw one 
Cahoon, whose first name I do not know, but whom I had seen be- 
fore in this city; he, the said Cahoon, then and there informed me 
that he was supervisor of election for the parish of Madison, ap- 
pointed by Henry C. Warmoth, then Governor of Louisiana, and 
that he wished me to swear him as to the returns of the late elec- 
tion. I saw there several persons whom I did not know; they were 
making up tally lists of the returns of the election for the parish of 
Madison. The lists were signed in blank by the commissioners of 
election. I inquired from Cahoon, the supervisor, how it was that 
he had not prepared the lists and returns in the parish where he 
came from. He told me that he could not count the votes there ; it 
was a Republican parish, and that he had to run away because he 
wanted to count the votes, and admit no one except a few, and he 
would have it his own way, and would here in New Orleans return 
such persons as he thought proper. I swore him to several tally 
lists and returns. I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that the 
greater part ot the tally lists were yet in blank when I swore him. 

JOHN P. MONTAMAT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this third day of February, 
1873. 

[seal] R. H. SHANNON, 

United States Commissioner, District of Louisiana. 

Mr. Frelinghoysen. Mr. President, let us look at the effect of the 
facts I have called attention to upon McEnei'y's majority. They 
claim for McEnery a majority of 9606. The four parishes where 
there were forgeries and the six parishes from which there are no 
returns, according to the Lynch board, give Kellogg a majority of 
7295. Now take the 7295 majority in six parishes not returned and 
in four in which the returns were forged from the 9606, and it leaves 
McEnery's majority, as the Senator from Wisconsin agrees, 2611. 
Now let us see what becomes of that 2611 majority. Let anybody 
who wants to examine this read the three hundred and sixth page 
of the testimony which was sent here with the President's message. 
There is Caddo parish. The white registration was 1549 and Mc- 



11 

Enery's vote 1837 — nearly 300 more than the white registration. 
The colored registration was 3139 and Kellogg's vote 1576, or 1563 
less than the colored registration. This shows fraud not before but 
after the election. It points to a falsification of returns, for frauds 
in keeping men back from the polls probably would not give Mc- 
Enary 300 more votes than there were white votes registered. 

Mr. Carpenter How can you tell whether a ballot was cast by a 
black man or a white man ? 

Mr. Freltnghuysen. No; but my friend's report states that the 
colored men were Republicans, as a general rule, and the whiles 
Democrats. Take Rapides parish. The white registry was 1011; 
McEnery's vote was 1960, or 949 more than the white registration. 
In Natchitoches the white registration was 1486, and McEnery's vote 
1230; the colored registration was 1875, and Kellogg's vote only 55. 
In Bossier parish the white registration was 578; McEnery's vote 
953, or 375 more than the white registration; the colored registra- 
tion 1795, and the vote for Kellogg 555. It is perfectly apparent 
that the fraud was in the returns as well as in the manner in which 
the election was conducted. 

But again, take another view of these returns. There are fifty-eigh 6 
parishes in Louisiana. In twenty-four — Ascension, Bienville, Calca" 
sieu, Caldwell, Cameron, Carroll, Claiborne, Concordia, East Feliciana* 
Franklin, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, Livingston, Ouachita, Pointe 
Coupee, Red River, Sabine, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John Bap- 
tist, Tangipahoa, Tensas, and Orleans — which are those where there 
is not much difference between the two boards of canvassers in the 
result, in those twenty-four parishes by the Forman board there is 
an aggregate of 36,679 democratic votes and 36,203 republican 
votes, giving a democratic majority of 476. According to the Lynch 
board the republican vote was 35,590 and the democratic vote 
33,81 7, giving a republican majority of 1,673. The Forman board 
gives a democratic majority of 476 and the Lynch board a republi- 
can majority of 1,673, no very great difference for such an election; 
average it, and call it a majority of 1000 for Kellogg. The vote was 
close and the registration was correspondingly so. The white regis- 
tration was 52,979 and the colored registration was 51,469. The 
democratic vote and the white registration, the republican vote and 
the colored registration correspond. 

Now look to the remaining thirty-four parishes. By the Forman 
board the democatic vote is in the aggregate 27,788; the republican 
vote 20,170, giving a democratic majority of 7618. This is manifest- 
ly a fraud, and is thus shown. In those thirty-four parishes the 
registration of whites was 34,786, and that registration gives a dem- 
ocratic vote of 27,788. The registration of the colored people was 
42,879, and that gives a republican vote of only 20,170. If the 
same ratio of republican votes- was given for the 42,000 colored 
registered voters as of democratic votes given by 34,000 white regis- 
tered votes, which was 27,788, the republican vote would be 35,000 
instead of 20,170. * 



12 

Now let us see what becomes of McEnery's majority. The differ- 
ence between 35,000, the true vote by all the analogies of this case 
and according to the Lynch board, and the 20,170 that the Forman 
returns give for these thirty-four parishes is 14,830. Take from 
that McEnery's majority of 9606, and it leaves Keliogg's majority 
4924. Add to the 4924 the majority which Kellogg had in the 
twenty-four parishes, and it makes Keliogg's majority 5^4. 

You may turn this subject any way you please, and you will find 
that Kellogg was not only the representative of the will and inten- 
tion of the people, as the Senator from Wisconsin says, but that he 
had a majority of the legal votes cast. 

THE V/)TE COMPAEED WITH 1874. 

The conclusion thus arrived at by the Senator from New Jersey, 
from his analysis of the registration and vote of 1872 is more than 
sustained by a comparison of the votes east in the parishes referred 
to by him in the general election of 1872, as claimed by the Fusion- 
ists or Democrats, and the votes cast in the same parishes in the 
local election for State Treasurer, held in November, 1874, as also 
claimed by the Democrats. As shown in schedule I, published below, 
in thirty-four parishes in the election of 1872, namely: Ascension, 
Bienville, Caldwell, Cameron, Carroll, Claiborne, Calcasieu, Concor- 
dia, East Feliciana, West Feliciana, Franklin, Iberia, Jefferson, 
Jackson, Lafayette, Livingston, Ouachita, Plaquemines, Red River, 
Richland, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Sabine, St. Charles, St. John, 
St. Landry, Tensas, Tangipahoa, Union, Vermilion, Vernon, Wash- 
ington, Winn and Orleans, respecting which parishes the returns of 
the Forman Fusion Board and of the Lynch Legal Board were sub- 
stantially the same, (vide page 81 of report of Senate Committee 
of 1873, and pages 1019-20 of report of Hoar Committee of 1875) 
Warmoth's election officers of 1872 returned — 

For McEnery 44,188 

For Kellogg 40,018 

Democratic majority ... 4,170 

In the twenty-two remaining parishes, as shown in Schedule II, 
published below, namely: Assumption, Avoyelles, East Baton Rouge, 
West Baton Rouge, Bossier, Caddo, Catahoula, De Soto, Grant, La- 
fourche, Iberville, Madison, Morehouse, Pointe Coupee, Natchitoches, 
Rapides, St. Bernard, St. Helena, St. James, St. Mary, Terrebonne 
and Webster, respecting which the Forman and Lynch Boards 



13 

widely differed in 1872, there were cast, according to the claim of 
the Democratic State Central Committee in the election of 1874: 

For Dubuclet (Republican candidate for State Treasurer) . 29,248 
For Moncure (Democratic candidate for State Treasurer) . 21,639 



Republican majority 7,609 

(Vide pages 1019-20, report of Hoar Committee.) 

Taking the vote cast in these parishes in the election of 1874 as 
being a fair indication of the vote in 1872, and adding Moncure 
and Dubuclet's vote in these twenty-two parishes in 1874, as claimed 
by the Democrats themselves, to the vote cast for McEnery and Kel- 
logg, respectively, in the other thirty-four parishes in 1872, the re- 
turns from which are conceded on both sides to be substantially 
correct, gives McEnery a total vote of 65,827, against Kellogg's 
69,266, a majority of thirty-four hundred and thirty-nine (3439) for 
Kellogg. In instituting this comparison it must be borne in mind 
that the election of 1872 was a general election for President as 
well as for State officers, and is admitted on all hands to have been 
the most peaceable election ever held in the State. In the words 
of Senator Carpenter, " Governor Warmoth, toho was the master spirit 
in the whole proceeding, seems to ham relied upon craft rattier than 
violence to carry the State for McEnery." The election of 1874 was 
purely a local one. It had been preceded by the terrible massacres 
of Colfax and Coushatta, and the sanguinary riot of the fourteenth 
September in New Orleans. The White League was in full force, 
and intimidation and coercion were freely practiced toward the 
colored voters. Under these circumstances the probability is so 
great as to amount almost to an absolute certainty that in the twenty- 
two parishes last named Kellogg and Grant, in 1872, received a 
majority twice as large as the vote cast for the Republican Treasurer 
in 1874. Respecting the latter election the Hoar Committee in their 
report say : 

Mr. Moncure, the conservative candidate for State Treasurer, 
claims a majority in the whole State of about 5000. A far greater 
number of Republicans than enough to overcome this majority must 
have been prevented from registration or driven by terror from the 
polls. 

That the returns from these twenty-two parishes in 1812 were 
fraudulent, and did not show the full Republican vote polled, is 



14 

proved by the sworn testimony taken by United States Chief Super- 
visor Woolfley, of which specimens are given in Executive Docu- 
ment No. 91, House of Representatives, Third Session Forty-second 
Congress, pages 111 to 131; also in a letter to the Attorney General 
of the United States at page 50 of the same document, or may be 
found in extenso in the report of the Chief Supervisor to the House of 
Representatives. The vote cast by the same parishes in 1870, as 
shown by a table published below, still further intensifies the proof 
of the enormous frauds perpetrated in 1874. Yet, taking the re- 
turns as made by the Democrats themselves, and claiming no more 
Republican votes in 1872 in these twenty-two parishes, the returns 
from which were in that year either forged, manipulated, or alto- 
gether suppressed, than the White League allowed to be cast in 
these parishes in 1874, there is still shown a clear majority for Kel- 
logg of thirty-four hundred and thirty-nine (3439) votes in 1872. 



ir-oi-no L-. T. n ■— 
I o -! — 2. 1 ~ 71 — ffi 2 

I o 71 - * l^ rt ^* in t'^ 

•psjox oW»* ofoft-TofcfoS 






oi in c-.t-oojcjsz.';^ ?J ~ - K — -i — 



— -? — = .3 -i - 71 
— — » -^ r- — t- 



Cj -H 7. T! ^ — 



ri 1- 

s2 



•pajopo c« 



co cm - 1- - -■ o ^ - ?, g " 2 ^ t; P 2 §23 S S o S S3 3 § i 
:£ K & £2 £ So Soi - « » |8a to - - 



-*f -p -J ;£J ^J« <5 fC 



•^JIHAV 



■ l": 7* -r r? — — « xi -^ -n* * 



S85!883S|g8J||gSlSlSllSJ 



3D t- u- -o Q I oa 

00" 00 
cj I m 

I 



1-1 "3 



^Z3£C? mWWZ^Z '5 ?- 1 S I ! 3 



^^WlflMFls^iMsss 



y o 

o a 



o~-rnsi--;t-f no o_3> JJ o»_pH_r3_c- p" w 



•ttu.iqquaay; I - 



-Jj »~ -> rt — — r-' 



~ X 




StJfH'gPgeJ^O'S • • • • , 3 

i »qo35 3 SSfifiM^pjjgog g « x » 5 x x x r 



Cww^tta^w^ogwwssgsaB a s P ?. i s i s s i s = a s s 



TON 



Tat 



.812 
3on- 
-ex- 
e or 
will 
lest 

lon- 



A. 

ndi- 
son 

tere 

770 
out 

Cel- 
yas 

at? 

,s a 

ere 

ier- 



wn 

3Ut 

or 
12? 



ith, 
bed 
sh, 
irp 



SCHEDULE >. 



Table showing Registration and Vote of 1870 and Registration of 1874 and Vole as claimed by the Democratic Central Committee for 
Treasurer in 1S74, in tvoenty-lwo parishes where it is claimed that votes wei'e changed or the returns fraudulent or forged as claimed by 
Warmoth election officers. 



Parishes. 



Assumption 

A vovcllos 

Baton Rouge, East. . 
Baton Rouge, West. 

Bossier 

( iaddi 

Catahoula 

DeSoto 

Grant 

Iberville A 

Lalourche 

Madison . 

Morehouse 

Natchitoches 

Point Coupee 

Rapides 

St. Bernard 

St. Helena 

si . James A 

si. Mary 

Terrehonne A 

Wehster 



Totals 

Add Schedule I 



Grand totals ! 153,353 

Add Lincoln, parish created since 1872 




76,823 90,781 ' 167,504 



k * Population of Madison parish, census of 1870— White, 936; Black, 7,f>63. 

Note No. 1— Vote for Kellogg in 1872, as per this schedule 69 !66 

Vote for Me lOner \ in 1872, as per this schedule 65,821 

Kellogg majority 3,439 

NOTE No. -J — At election prior to ls7-2. to wit; For Auditor, 1870 — 

Republican s polled vote of 65, 531 

Democrats polled vote ot 'I 615 

Republican majority 24,516 

Note No. 3— A1 (diction subsequent to 1872, to wit, for Treasurer in 1874 — 

Republicans polled vote of 70,444 

Democrats polled vote of 68,584 

Republican majority 1,860 

A— Roturns as made to Forman Hoard, but disregarded. 



15 

THE HOAE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION INTO THE ELECTION 

OF 1872. 

The manipulation of the returns by the Warmoth officials in 1872 
was in fact so gross and apparent that very few even of the Con- 
servative witnesses examined by the Hoar Committee, if cross-ex- 
amined on this subject, ventured any palliation or denial. One or 
two extracts from the testimony taken by the Hoar Committee will 
suffice to show how that election was regarded by the more honest 
Conservatives. 

Henry Ware, a prominent planter of Iberville, called by the Con- 
servatives, testified that he voted for Grant and Kellogg in 1872. 

Cross-examined, (p. 629) he says: 

By Mr. Frye: 

Q. What was the vote for treasurer in your parish in 1874 ? A. 
I do not remember. 

Q. Was it 770 for Moncure and 2161 for the Republican candi- 
date ? A. I do not recollect what it was, only I have every reason 
to believe it was largely Republican. 

Q. Have you any doubt that it was ? A. I have no doubt; there 
were three tickets run. 

Q. I am asking about the vote for State treasurer — whether 770 
for Moncure and 2167 for the Republican candidate would be about 
right, in your opinion ? A. I should think so. 

Q. In 1872, I have the vote 691 for McEnery and 2239 for Kel- 
logg; in your opinion, is that correct ? A. I should think that was 
about correct. 

Q. Who was the registrar there under Warmoth's appointment ? 
A. I could not tell you who it was; I never knew him. He was a 
man that did not live among us, I think. 

Q. Here are the returns of the Forman board in 1872. Was there 
any return made by the Forman board of any votes at all from Iber- 
ville ? A. I don't see any there. 

Q. There is none there ? A. No. 

Q. Do you remember the fact that Iberville parish was thrown 
out by the Forman returning board ? A. I have heard it was, but 
I never did know what the final result was. 

Q. Then, if it was thrown out, Kellogg was deprived of 1500 or 
1600 majority ? A. Yes. 

Q. There was no intimidation by black men of the whites in 1872? 
A. Not that I know of. 

One Tharp, sent as supervisor to Iberville parish by Warmoth, 
made a statement on his returns that the colored people intimidated 
the whites, and the Forman Democratic board threw out the parish, 
although it gave Grant and Kellogg over 1500 majority. Tharp 
was afterwards indicted, and fled to California. 



16 

Dr. Alfred Duperier of Iberia, a native of the State, called for 
the conservatives, testified that he voted for Grant and Kellogg in 
1872. Cross examined by Mr. Frye, pages 610, 621, he said: 

Q. Do you think that in the election of 1872 the Democrats, with 
the aid of Warmoth, conducted the election regardless of honesty? 
A. That is my opiniou. 

Q. Do you think they were honest in the conduct of that election? 
A. No, Siiv 

Q. Do you think they conducted that election regardless of 
honesty? A. Yes. 

And in reply to Mr. Wheeler with regard to the vote actually cast 

in the parish in 1872, he says: 

Q. You said Grant received 300 majority in your parish? A. I 
said, I think, he received 300 white votes. 

Q,. Did not Kellogg receive the same number? A. Not quite 
the same. I think his majority was a little less. 

Q. You think Kellogg was elected Governor. Now, don't you 
think that the President was right in restoring him the goverment 
when it was taken away from him by revolution ? A. Those are my 
views; if for no other purpose than to prevent blood-shed and anar- 
chy, I think it was the right policy. 

******* 

Q. Of the three remedies, recognition of the Kellogg government 
by the national government, a provisional government, or a new 
election, which in your judgment would be most acceptable to the 
great body of the people ? A. I think the most acceptable to the 
intelligent class of people in my section of the country would be the 
recognition of the Kellogg government; that is with the Legisla- 
ture returned as elected at the last election. 

The vote of the parish of Iberia was thrown out by the Forman 
Board for no known reason, except that the parish went Republican; 
as was also the vote of St. James parish, which gave Grant and 
Kellogg over 1200 majority. 

It. P. Hunter of Alexandria, editor of the Caucasian, one of the 
most violent "White League papers in the State, called by the Conserva- 
tives and cross examined, pages 524-5 : 

By the Chairman: 

Q. You said you were not informed about whether any number 
of colored voters voted with you in the State in 1872, but in the 
parish of Rapides they did not ? A. I do not think they did, sir. 

Q. You do not think you had any negro votes ? A. Well, sir, a 
few voted all the time. 

Q. Then, will you tell me how it happens that in the parish of 
Rapides, in 1872, the white registration being 1011, Mr. McEnery 
received 1960 votes ? A. I can not tell you anything about 1872 at 



17 

all, sir. I refused to participate in the campaign of that year, and 
sedulously secluded myself at my home in the pine woods. 

Q. But, Mr. Hunter, I understood you to state to this committee 
in the beginning of your testimony that you resorted to what you 
call the extreme remedy of organizing a white man's party, and 
dividing it on the color line, which you admit generally would be 
objectionable in principle, because your organization had the effect 
to induce the colored people to join the white men in removing 
those abuses which existed — that you say? A. Yes, sir; I think so. 
Q. You also said, in reply to me, that your information did not 
extend to the rest of the State, but Kapides parish alone. Now, I 
ask you how you account for the fact that in Kapides parish in 1872 
Mr. McEnery had 1960 votes, when the white registered vote was 
only 1011, or substantially one-half his votes were either fraudulent 
or came from colored men ? A. I tell you I do not attempt to ac- 
count for it at all. Governor Warmoth had a way of doing things 
that I do not attempt to explain or excuse. 

Q. Do you not believe that extraordinary measures were resorted 
to by the white man's party, and do you not believe that there was 
in the parish of Rapides a fraudulent count for McEnery of at least 
nine hundred votes in that return ? A. I would rather you would 
excuse me from answering that question, because I can not answer 
it from any information of my own. 

Q. Well, you will see the inference which may be drawn? A You 
may draw your own inference. I do not know anything about that 
at all. 

Q. My purpose was to point it out to you before any inference 
was drawn, so that I might be sure you said all you could in regard 
to it. A. I think I did so; all I can. 

Q. In what you regard to be so important and ordinarily objec- 
tionable a step as starting a white man's party, and drawing the color 
line, with its tendency to perpetuate and stimulate this race antago- 
nism, from which you have suffered so much, do not you think that 
you ought at least to have informed yourself whether in your own 
parish there were or not 900 colored votes cast for your candidates 
at your last election? A. I had, judge, if you will permit me, a 
pretty general idea of how the campaign of 1872 had been conducted, 
without any specific data upon which to base my ideas. 

Q. "Well, now, about that pretty general idea; was that general 
idea that you had 900 colored votes in Rapides parish, or that the 
900 votes returned for McEnery were fraudulently returned ? "Was 
that your general idea on the subject ? A. My general idea on the 
subject was that Governor Warmoth had a way of doing things that 
did not suit me exactly. I did not go into it, and perhaps it was 
not altogether fair. I have no doubt that is the condition of affairs, 
if you state the statistics right. I am not familiar with them. 

Q. I state what I understand was right. A. I never remember to 
have seen their statistics. 

Q. I understand the white registration in Rapides parish was 
1011 and the McEnery vote was 1960, or 949 more than the white 



18 

registration. A. I do not know anything about that; I never paid 
any attention to it at all. 

Q. I also understand that in Natchitoches the colored registration 
was 1875 and Kellogg's vote only 55. Now, if that were true, 1820 
colored voters must either have refrained from voting against you 
or voted with you. A. Mr. Pierson, who has testified on this stand, 
was Governor Warmoth's registrar in Natchitoches, and can explain 
that. 

Q Do I understand you as expressing your belief that the votes 
returned and counted for McEnery in the year 1872 were to a large 
extent fraudulently so returned or counted ? Do you believe that 
the votes returned and counted for McEnery in 1872 were to a large 
extent fraudulently so returned or counted? A. I can state there 
were some irregularities. 

Q. Well, you believe that, do not you ? Just state it. A. If you 
press me on my oath, I will say yes, sir. I prefer not to answer the 
question, because I had nothing to do with the politics of that year. 

Andrew J. Gordon, (colored) of St. Mary's parish, called by the 
Conservatives, testified (p. 623) that he voted for Kellogg in 1872, 
and that the colored people generally voted the Republican ticket 
that year; but he claimed that in 1874 a large number of colored 
people in St. Mary's voted for the Conservatives. Yet, while in 
1872 Grant and Kellogg were given only 128 majority in St. Mary's 
parish by the Forman Fusion Board, in 1874, as admitted by the 
Conservatives, the Republicans received 1098 majority in that same 
parish. Gordon further testified that one Dr. White was War- 
moth's supervisor of registration in 1872; the commissioners of elec- 
tion were appointed by White, and the returns were made by him, 
and White returned himself as elected Senator, and afterwards took 
his seat in the McEnery Senate. 

Hon. J. B. Elam, a native of DeSoto parish, called by the Conserva- 
tives, and cross-examined by Mr. Frye, (p. 688) said: 

Q. Do you believe that the honest vote of DeSoto in 1872 was 
1450 Democrats and 444 Republicans? A. I do not think our ma- 
jority was so large as that. 

Q. That was the return of the Forman Board. Then you believe 
there was cheating in regard to that majority ? A. It was much 
larger than I expected. 

Q. You know that the registered colored vote is larger than the 
registered white vote, and you know that it has been shown that 
there was not the same attempt made in 1872 to get the colored vote 
for the Conservatives that was made in 1874 ? A. I think you are 
mistaken in regard to that. There was a greater attempt to get the 
colored vote in 1872 by argument and reasoning than in 1874. 

Q. Was there any intimidation ? A. No, sir. 



19 

Q. Do you believe that two-thirds of all the colored Republicans 
in your parish voted the Democratic ticket in 1872, voluutarily ? 
A. I think that all that did vote it in 1872 voted it voluntarily; and 
if there was anything wrong in the result, it was from miscount in 
some way. 

Q. Don't you believe that there was a miscount ? A. Well, sir, I 
hate to charge people with such a thing. I will say, however, that 
the majority was a good deal larger than I expected. 

Q. And you believe it was larger than the vote really cast ? A. I 
believe it was larger than it ought really to be. 

Governor Warmoth, in 1872, sent a man to DeSoto as supervisor, 
notoriously to manipulate the vote of that parish in the interests of 
the Democratic ticket. 

The conclusion derived by the committee from this and other tes- 
timony is thus expressed by Messrs. Hoar, Wheeler and Frye. After 
alluding to the difficulty of making a direct and thorough investiga- 
tion they say: 

"But our best judgment is that Governor Kellogg was elected, 
and we find that many of the more moderate of his oppo- 
nents concede his election. There is no argument to show the 
election of McEnery which is not met by one equally strong in proof 
of the election of Kellogg. The registration shows a considerable 
majority of colored voters, and it is not denied that Kellogg received 
substantially all the colored votes, besides some thousand whites. 
Taking the Democratic returns in 1872 for all the parishes, except 
four, for which the returns are conceded to be forgeries, and six 
others from which they threw out the returns for fraud and violence, 
and get at the true vote in those parishes in any way you can, by 
comparing the vote with the registration of white and colored voters, 
or by taking the Republican and Democratic votes at the election of 
this year, and it gives Kellogg a majority of several thousand. 
Besides, Kellogg is now in office. The frauds, which make it impos- 
sible to ascertain in any better or more satisfactory mode the true 
will of the people, were perpetrated by the appointees of Warmoth 
in the interest of McEnery. 

* * * * * * * 

" Kellogg is now in fact in office. The President has recognized 
him, and states to Congress that from the best information he can 
obtain he believes him to have been elected. The Kellogg govern- 
ment is a fact; its legality is sustained by the judicial tribunals of 
the State; it is in active operation in all its departments. Under it 
the late State election has been held, and on its certificates must 
depend, prima facie, the right to their seats of the Representatives 
chosen from Louisiana for the next Congress. The McEnery 
government exists only on paper. Its recognition would create the 
most perplexing questions as to the legality of all public proceed- 
ings had in Louisiana for two years past. The recognition of Kel- 



20 

logg by the House will give peace and quiet to Louisiana until the 
next election.'' 

Messrs. Foster and Phelps who did not put any questions in rela- 
tion to the election of 1872 to the witnesses examined by them, still 
express their opinion that " the popular belief, taking both Conserva- 
tive and Radical circles inclines, on the whole, to justify Kellogg 
and Penn's claims," and they accordingly "do not wish to oppose 
the recommendation that the administration of Governor Kellogg 
be recognized." 

CONFIRMATION FROM THE CENSUS OF 1872. 

It is conceded on all sides that the colored citizens almost unani- 
mously voted for Grant and Kellogg in 1872, and it is proved that 
a very large white vote was polled in the same direction. Turning 
to page 619 of the census of 1870 it will be found that out of the 
total population of Louisiana in 1870 there were — 

White males, twenty-one years and upwards 87,066 

Colored males, twenty-one years and upwards , . . . . 86,913 

A total of 173,979 

But the total of male citizens is given at 159,001, a difference of 
very nearly 15,000 to be deducted from the voting strength of the 
whites, as by the results of the war all colored males above the age 
of twenty-one years became citizens. Thus, deducting from the 
total white males over twenty-one years, 87,066, this number of 
aliens or non-citizens, 14,378, we obtain the aggregate of the white 
voting population, 72,088, against an aggregate colored voting popu- 
lation of 86,913, which shows a clear majority in favor of the colored 
voters of 14,825, to which must be added the 4000 or 5000 whites 
who habitually vote the Republican ticket, to say nothing of the 
considerable number of colored men of such light complexion that 
few persons would at the first glance question their color, and many 
of whom are known to have been classed as white by the census 
marshals in 1870. 

THE REGISTRATION OF 1872 CORROBORATES. 

The following statement shows the number of registered voters at 
the close of registration October 28, 1872 : 



21 

Parish. White. Colored. Total. 

Ascensiou 1,148 3,296 4,444 

Assumption 2,207 2,176 

Avoyelles 2,139 2.188 4,327 

Baton Rouge, East 1,489 1,559 3,048 

Baton Rouge, West 397 859 1,256 

Bienville 916 715 1,631 

Bossier .... 

Caddo 1,549 3,134 4,683 

Calcasieu 702 166 868 

Caldwell 541 586 1,127 

Cameron 263 31 294 

Carroll 572 2,073 2,045 

Catahoula 1,065 992 2,057 

Claiborne 1,373 1,293 2,606 

Concordia 307 2,577 2,384 

DeSoto 1,004 1,403 2,407 

Feliciana. East 1,100 2,351 3,451 

Feliciana, West 521 2,084 2,605 

Franklin 522 507 1,029 

Grant 616 733 1,349 

Iberia 1,140 1,241 2,381 

Iberville 740 3,296 4,036 

Jackson 1,101 822 1,923 

Jefferson 1,396 2,866 4,262 

Lafayette 1,115 897 2,012 

Lafourche 2,302 2,407 4,709 

Livingston .... 

Madison 1,718 2,007 2,725 

Morehouse 694 1,339 2,033 

Natchitoches 1,517 1,833 3,350 

Orleaos 35,782 19,244 55,026 

Ouachita 970 2.311 3,281 

Plaquemines 673 1,699 2,372 

Point Coupee 1,039 2,»07 3,840 

Rapides 1,719 1,629 3,o4S 

Red River 441 966 1,407 

Richland 599 644 1,243 

Sabine 711 151 8 2 

St. Bernard 500 570 1,070 

St. Charles 300 1,850 2,150 

St. Helena .... .... 

St. James 703 2,120 2,823 

St. John Baptist 817 1,720 2,537 

St. Landry 3,718 3,641 7,359 

St. Martin 1,035 926 1,961 

St. Mary 1,117 1,941 3,01-S 

St. Tammany 624 700 1,324 

Tangipahoa 917 613 1,530 

Tensas 368 3,146 3,514 

Terrebonne . . 

Union 1,788 872 2,620 

Vermilion ' 828 282 1.110 

Vernon 717 79 790 

Washington 543 168 71 1 

Webster 854 862 1,716 

Winn 755 135 890 



Total : 86,672 94,407 181,179 

As will be seen by the annexed certificates this registration was 
taken exclusively under Democratic Fusion auspices: 



22 

State of Louisiana, Office State Registkak of Voters, 

New Orleans, September 8, 1873. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing statement has been carefully compiled by 
me from the final reports of supervisors of registration in the parishes above 
named, as made to B. P. Blanchard, State Registrar of Voters in the year 1872, 
at which time I was chief clerk to said B. P. Blanchard, and that the original 
reports and final reports are now on file in the office of State Registrar of Voters. 

WALTER S. LONG, 
Clerk State Registrar of Voters. 

State of Louisiana, Office State Registrar of Voters, 

New Orleans, September 8, 1873. 

I hereby certify that the original final reports of supervisors of registration, 
from which the foregoing has been compiled, are on file in this office, and that 
the compilation is correctly made. THOMAS LTNNE, 

State Registrar of Voters. 

The registration of 1870 showed over 23,000 excess of colored 
voters over white. 

It will be noticed that in the above compilation four parishes from 
which there were no returns are omitted, viz: Bossier, St. Helena, 
Livingston and Terrebonne. The population of Bossier parish by 
the census of 1870 was, white, 3505; colored, 9170. The registered 
vote of the parish in 1872, according to the report of the United 
States supervisors, was, white, 587 ; colored, 1795. The vote of St. 
Helena and Livingston parishes in 1872 was small. The population of 
Terrebonne parish by the census of 1870 was, white, 6080; colored, 
6172. The registered vote of this parish in 1872 was, white, 1201; 
colored, 1608. In New Orleans the registered vote in 1872 was ex- 
cessive and fraudulent, as is shown by the affidavits published in the 
appendix. 

CONFIRMATORY TESTIMONY OF THE FUSION REGISTRATION AND 
RETURNING OFFICERS. 

The State Registrar of Voters in the election of 1872 was B. P. 
Blanchard, who was appointed by Governor Warmoth in 1870, as a 
Liberal Republican. The then existing laws conferred upon this offi- 
cer enormous powers, and one of the leading objects of the Fusion 
combination was to secure the exercise of these powers for the defeat 
of Grant, Kellogg, and the regular Republican ticket. Blanchard 
acted with "Warmoth and the Fusionists in 1872, making all his ap- 
pointments in their interest, but subsequently when Warmoth had, 
been defeated of the Fusion nomination for the United States Senate, 
and when it became evident that the Democratic party had thrown 



23 

their liberal allies overboard, and only sought to gain the control of 
the State government for themselves, Blanchard made an expose of 
the manner in which the election of 1872 was conducted, and of the 
frauds which were resorted to to defeat the will of the people as 
actually expressed at the polls. His sworn statement together with 
that of Walter S. Long, his chief clerk, will be found in the ap- 
pendix (Exhibits B. and C.) 

0. F. Hunsacker and S. M. Todd, two of the Warmoth Republican 
State Senators elected in 1870, and holding over in 1872, joined the 
McEnery Senate when it met in December of that year, and con- 
tinued to act with that body during its sessions in 1873. When War- 
moth approved the act repealing the law under which the election of 
1872 had been held, which act he had previously refused to sign, but 
subsequently promulgated in order to get rid of the Lynch returning 
board, which the courts had just decided to be the legal one, the 
board known as the Forman board was created by appointment of 
the McEnery Senate under the provisions of this act, and Senators 
Hunsacker and Todd were elected members of that board, Mr. 
Hunsacker being chosen president. Their affidavits, showing the 
manner in which the returns of the so-called Forman board were 
prepared and canvassed, will be found in the appendix, (Exhibit D) 
and particular attention is called thereto. It will be seen that these 
members of the Forman board express, under oath, their conviction 
that a fair, proper and correct canvass of the returns would have 
shown that William P. Kellogg was elected Governor by the actual 

votes cast. 

POPULATION OF 1875. 

The census of 1875, just taken, shows the population of the State 
to be — 

Colored 450,611 

White 404,916 

Excess of colored over white 45,695 

This census is as fairly and accurately taken. So careful was 
Governor Kellogg that there should be no just ground of com- 
plaint or suspicion on this score, that he appointed a Democratic 
clerk of registration in every parish of the State and ward of 
the city, and nearly half of the officers to whom was committed 
the taking of the census were Conservatives. 



24 

KELLOGG'S DESIRE FOR A FAIR CANVASS — McENERY'S UNWIL 

LINGNESS. 

One important fact which must not be lost sight of in considering 
the question of who was elected in 1872, is that Governor Kellogg has 
at all times and on all occasions expressed a willingness to abide by a 
fair canvass of the actual returns, conducted openly by fair-minded 
and disinterested persons. Mr. McEnery and his friends, who from 
the first have retained forcible and illegal possession of the original 
returns, removing them on more than one occasion beyond the limits 
of the State, have consistently declined each of these offers when 
first made to them, only yielding an apparent assent afterwards 
when some intermediate scheme of chicanery or violence attempted 
by them had failed of its object, and when the conditions allowing 
of a fair canvass with practical results no longer prevailed. When 
the case was first taken before the United States Circuit Court, be- 
fore any decision had been rendered or any order issued, Mr. Kel- 
logg, through his counsel, Mr. William H. Hunt, one of the most 
eminent members of the New Orleans bar, offered to submit his 
claims to the decision of five reputable and disinterested citizens, 
two to be chosen by Mr. McEnery, two by himself, and the fifth by 
the four. At the time this offer was made the circumstances were 
such that by mutual agreement it could have been carried into im- 
mediate effect. Mr. McEnery declined the proposition, stating to 
Mr. Hunt that Warmoth would not agree to it. Some months after- 
wards, when an attempt, made in the meantime to take forcible pos- 
session of the State House and install the Legislature returned by 
the illegal Fusion Board had failed; when the legal Legislature 
had met and counted the votes for Governor, declaring Kellogg 
elected; when the Republican officials had been for some time 
in possession of the government, and had been recognized by 
the President, and sustained by numerous decisions of the high- 
est courts of the State and of the United States, and when 
an emphatic proclamation had been issued by the President 
directing the United States forces to sustain the recognized State 
Government of Louisiana against all such attempts at revolution- 
ary violence as had recently been unsuccessfully tried in St. Martins- 
ville, Mr. McEnery, under date of July 5, 1873, addressed to Gov- 
ernor Kellogg a letter expressing his willingness to submit the 



25 

pending controversy to the arbitration of five citizens. But any such 
arbitration was at that time utterly impracticable, and could scarcely 
have been regarded in any other light by Mr. McEnery. 

THE CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY. 

In the month of November, 1874, Governor Kellogg had addressed 
to the President a telegram urgently requestiug that a committee of 
Congress be sent down to the State, so that the very right of all the 
points in controversy lorming what was then so generally discussed 
as the Louisiana question, might be fully established. A committee 
of the lower House of Congress was appointed consisting of Hons. 
George F. Hoar, chairman ; William A. Wheeler, William P. Frye, 
Samuel S. Marshall, Clarkson N. Potter, Charles Foster and William 
Walter Phelps. In the latter part of December Messrs. Foster, 
Potter and Phelps, constituting a sub-committee of this committee 
appointed by Congress, came to New Orleans and after conducting 
a hurried and partial examination were preparing to leave for Wash- 
ington without entering upon the question as to who was elected 
Governor in 1872. Governor Kellogg thereupon addressed to them 
the following communication, which was read publicly during their 
session of January 2, preceding the meeting of the Legislature, which 
occurred on the following Monday : 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

New Orleans, January, 2, 1875. 

Hon. Charles Foster, Member of Congress, chairman of Sub-Committee on Louisiana affairs. 

Sie : I have just been informed by one of the counsel engaged in the investiga- 
tion now taking place before your committee, that you have decided not to include 
the election of ^72 within the scope of your investigation. Permit me respect- 
fully to suggest that the question whether or not Louisiana was carried by the 
Republican party in the election of 1872 has been the disputed point which for 
two years has agitated the State. Religiously believing that 1 was elected by a 
majority of the votes actually cast at that election, I have struggled to discharge 
the duties of my office amid difficulties such as few men have been called upon to 
encounter. Nothing but a sense of duty has kept me at my post during all these 
weary months of obloquy and misrepresentation. 

Recently I telegraphed to the Pi esident urging that a committee of Congress 
be sent here, believing that such a committee being upon the ground, with power 
to send for persons and papers, could ascertain the right of this question, so far 
as I ami (he government I represent are concerned. I am intensely anxious, aud 
I think justly so, that there should be some solution of this difficulty. I believe 
an investigation, that need not last many days, would reasonably satisfy any im- 
partial mind whether I was elected in 1872 or not; but even by taking a general 
view of the case, I think something might be done to elucidate the que-tiou. For 
instance, if the committee were to take the returns of 1872, as made by both 
boards, and contrast them with the returns of this year, as made by the Return- 
ing Board, or as claimed by the Democratic party, with such facis aud details as I 
think could be readily obtained, I believe a righteous conclusion could be arrived 



26 

at. The census, and the relative registration, white and black, and the relative 
vote in 1872 and 1874 would throw much light on tho matter, and I submit that 
the returns from tho e Democratic parishes where, by the Fusion count of the For- 
man board, we were allowed our reasonable minority vote in 1872, but where no 
Republican vote, or scarcely one was permitted to be cast this year, might, prop- 
erly be considered. 

I have had no opportunity to examine in detail the returns of 1872 as made by 
the F'usionists. These returns are probably accessible and their authenticity or 
genuineness is susceptible of proof. Allow me to suggest as another mode likely 
to aid in reaching a conclusion that the returns of 1872, as made by the Fusion 
board be taken as correct wherever they do not widely differ from the returns of 
the Lynch board, and wherever they do so differ, let the returns from these same 
parishes this year, as claimed by the Democratic committee itself, be taken as 
representing the vote of 1872. For instance, take the twenty-eight parishes where 
both boards return the same candidates to the House, and adopt the returns of 
the Foreman board. Then for the other parishes, where the two boards differed 
widely, take the vote this year, even as returned by the Democratic committee. 
This will be to concede returns in which, in many cases, the Republicans were not 
credited with their full vote, but were deprived of votes actually cast by means 
of fraudulent practices, as can be easily shown. These aspects of the case, to- 
gether with other evidence procurable will, I believe, go very far to elucidate the 
rights of this controversy. 

Believing that the c >mmittee you represent has the confidence of the country, 
I, speaking for myself, will gladly abide by its decision, if it can consistently go 
into this much disputed question of the election of 1872, with the facts and figures 
and other proofs believed to be available. I feel very strongly the necessity that 
this important question should be determined in some decisive manner, and this 
is my only excuse for presuming to offer these suggestions to your committee. 

Permit me to add that I trust the opposition will be afforded full opportunity 
before your departure to endeavor to make good some at least of the many allega- 
tions of maladministration and corruption they have constantly sent abroad 
with regard to myself. The records of the State are easy of access, and I will 
cheerfully afford every possible facility for an inquiry both thorough and com- 
plete, to the end that it may be known how far my administration is justly 
chargeable with the many evils complained of. 
Very respectfully, your obedient seivant, 

WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 

McENERY'S ACTION. 

No notice was taken of this communication either by Mr. Mc- 
Enery or his friends, ai the time. On the following Monday, Janu- 
ary 4, a revolutionary attempt was made by the partisans of Mr. 
McEnery to take forcible possession of the organization of the Leg- 
islature, which attempt was frustrated under circumstances too well 
known to need recital here. [See appendix, Exhibit A.] Then, and 
not till then, Mr. McEnery became once more in favor of arbi- 
tration. The following letter, dated the fifth of January, was 
handed to the committee on the sixth: 

New Oeleans, January 5, 1875. 

Hon. Charles Foster, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress : 

Sie — Reposing perfect confidence in the judgment and impartiality of the 
committee over which you preside, and auxious to have a speedy solution of the 
difficulties which have grown out of the election of 1872, we now propose to sub- 



27 

mit the whole question of the result of that election to your committee (the sub- 
committee of three) for final determination. 

We make $his submission in the interest of peace and good government, and 
feel siucerely anxious that you should undertake the iuvestigation and determine 
the matter belore leaving the State. 

Very respectfully, etc., JOHN McENERY, 

D. B. PENN, 
JAMES GRAHAM, 
H. N. OGDEN, 
R. M. LUSHER. 

THE SUB-COMMITTEE ACCEPTS. 

The sub-committee responded by addressing to the parties in in- 
terest the subjoined explicit inquiries: 

New Okleans, January 6, 1875. 

To Messrs. "William P. Kellogg, Acting Governor of Louisiana; C. C. Antome, Acting 
Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana ; John McEnery, claiming the right to act as Governor 
of Louisiana j D. B. Penn, claiming the right to act as Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana: 

Gentlemen — The committee acknowledge receipt of propositions, either written 
or oral, from each of you, offering, in view of tlie unhappy condition of affairs 
in your State, to leave to their decision and arbitration the settlement of your 
various claims. 

The committee have about closed an investigation, made as thorough as their 
limited time would permit, and are unwilling to return here to embark upon the 
fresh task which your confidence would throw upon them, unless certainly as- 
sured that their decision, whatever it might be, would be acquiesced in by each 
of you, and by each and all of you accepted as a final declaration of your rights. 

Under these circumstances, before further considering your proposition, we 
desire to know. 

"Will you, William P. Kellogg, if the committee decide that you were not 
elected Governor, resign your office, and refuse to assume it except on the returns 
of a popular election ? " 

" Will you, C. C. Antoine, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
Lieutenant Governor, resign your office and refuse to resume it, except upon the 
returns of a popular election ?" 

"Will you, John McEnery, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
Governor, withdraw all claims to the office, and waive all rights which you think 
you acquired by the election of 1872 ?" 

" Will you, f). B. Penn, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
Lieutenant Governor, withdraw all claim to the office and waive all rights which 
you think you acquired bv the election of 1872 ?" 

Per contra, will each of you accept or retain any office to which the committee 
shall decide you were elected, so far as such acceptance or retention can be legally 
accomplished. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FOSTER, Chairman. 

BOTH PARTIES BOUND. 

Colonel McEnery replied: 

New Orleans, January 6, 1875. 

Hon. Charles Foster, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress : 

Sie — Your communication of January 6, 1875, is just received. To the first 
interrogatory, which is in the following words : 

"Will you, John McEnery, if the committee decide that you were not elected 
Governor, withdraw all claim to the office and waive all rights which you think 
you acquired by the election of 1872?" I answer, distinctly, yes. 



28 

To the question, " Will you accept or retain any office to which the committee 
shall decide you were elected, so far as such acceptance or retention can be 
legally accomplished ?" I answer that I will. Kespectfully, etc., • 

JOHN McENERY. 

Governor Kellogg also answered: 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

New Orleans, January 7, 1875. 
Hon. Charles Foster, M. C, Chairman Sub-Committee of Congress: 

Sir — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of 
the sixth instant, asking me if the committee should decide that I was not elected 
Governor, whether I will resign my office and refuse to resume it except upon 
the returns of a popular election. 

In reply I beg respectfully to refer you to my letter of January 2. I again ex- 
press my willingness to abide bv any decision that may be arrived at by your 
committee. 

Very respectfully your ob't serv't. 

WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 

FURTHER INVESTIGATION INVOKED. 

The Republican members of the Legislature felt that they were 
not receiving justice at the hands of the Phelps and Foster sub- 
committee, whose investigations were conducted mainly in a parlor 
at the St. Charles Hotel, where no colored man could gain an en- 
trance, and where few white Republicans could go in the then ex- 
cited condition of public feeling without risk of insult or possible in- 
jury, the room in which the committee met being daily packed to 
its utmost capacity with members of the White League. They ac- 
cordingly passed the following joint resolution: 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Louisiana, in 
General Assembly convened, That we earnestly request the special committee on 
Louisiana affairs appointed by the Hon. Speaker Blaine, December 15, 1874, to 
visit this city at the earliest practicable moment, and institute inquiry into all 
the facts connected with the present condition of affairs in this State ; and that 
the Governor be requested to transmit this resolution by telegraph to the Hon. 
George F. Hoar, chairman of said committee. 

On the twelfth and thirteenth of January the Governor forwarded 
the following telegraphic dispatches to the Hon. Mr. Hoar: 

State of Louisiana, Executive Dzpartment, 

January 12, 1875. 

Hon. George F. Hoar, chairman Congressional Committee on Louisiana Affairs, Washing, 
ton, D. C : 

I, in common with all Republicans here, earnestly request that you and the 
other members of your committee will come here immediately and thoroughly 
investigate the whole situation, including the election of 1872, to the end that 
the very rights of our case may be known. 

WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 



29 

State of Louisiana, Executive Department, 

New Orleans, Jauuary 13, 1875. 
Hon. George F. Hoar, M. C, Washington, D. C. : 

Both Houses Legislature passed resolutions to day earnestly requesting your 
committee to come down and make full investigation. 

WM. P. KELLOGG. 

THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS COME IN. 

In response to these requests Messrs. Hoar, Frye, Wheeler and 
Marshall, forming the balance of the whole committee, came to 
New Orleans, and on the twenty-second of January entered upon 
an investigation, choosing for their place of meeting one of the va- 
cant United States courtrooms, which would be accessible alike to 
all, white or colored, Democrats or Republicans. As the inves- 
tigation thus entered upon progressed, and it became apparent that 
the Eepublicans would have an equal showing with their opponents, 
and that the Democrats were losing the advantage they had gained 
by the report of the sub-committee, the Democratic members elected 
to the Legislature and the Democrats claiming to have been elected 
who, after the failure of the Wiltz coup d'etat on the fourth of Janu- 
ary, had been daily meeting in secret caucus, adopted the following 
resolution, which was laid before the committee: 

Besolved by this house caucus, composed of the conservative members, returned 
by the returning-board, and those claiming to have been undoubtedly elected but 
defrauded by said board, That desiring, in the interest of our afflicted State, to 
have a solution of cur political troubles, and relying on the integrity and fairness 
of the four gentlemen members of the congressional committee now in New Or- 
leans, and in advance of any investigation on their part, we, as a body, hereby 
ask them (if the task is not considered too onerous) to take the returns of the 
election of 1871, together with all fair and relevant testimony, and upon such re- 
turns and evidence declare what members of the legislature were fairly elected. 

Resolved, That Hon. Louis A. Wiltz, speaker of the house, be requested to wait 
upon said gentlemen and present to them a copy of this resolution. 

Done in conservative house caucus this 23d day of January, 1874. 

LOUIS A.' WILTZ, Speaker. 

KELLOGG RENEWS HIS PROPOSAL— McENERY AGREES. 

Governor Kelllogg renewed his offer to submit his claim to the 
office of Governor to this committee, as he had previously done to 
the sub-committee. These repeated offers called forth another com- 
munication from Mr. McEnery and friends, under date of January 
25, 1875, (p. 944 Hoar committee's report) in which, after referring 
to the previous offers, they say: 

"We now desire to express our perfect readiness to accept the full committee 
as arbiters of the same matter, and to abide by its decision." 



/ 



/ 



30 

But in this communication it is characteristically suggested that 
the returns should be taken to Washington, and opened and exam- 
ined there, "so as to avoid any great interference with the congres- 
sional duties of the committee.'' It is hardly necessary to make the 
suggestion that in Washington the evidence of the fraudulent char- 
acter of a large portion of the returns, which was all ready to hand 
here, could not be produced, and that had Mr. McEnery chosen to 
lay these returns before the committee, the bogus character of a 
portion of them could have been established by a very few hours' in- 
vestigation. 

PROTOCOL OF ADJUSTMENT. 

Eventually, after much negotiation, the following protocol was 
drawn up and signed, the original being now in possession of Gov- 
ernor Kellogg: 

Whebeas, It is desirable to adjust the difficulties growing out of the election 
in this State in 1872, the action of the Returning Board in declaring and promul- 
gating the results of the election in the month of November last, and the organi- 
zation of the House of Representatives on the- fourth of Januaiy last, and 
adjustment being deemed necessary to the re-establishment of peace and order 
in this State; 

Now, therefore, the undersigned members of the Conservative party, claiming 
to have been elected members of the House of Representatives, and that their 
certificates of election have been illegally withheld by the Returning Board, 
hereby severally agree to submit their claims to seats in the House of Represen- 
tatives to the award and arbitrament of the gentlemen composing the Louisiana 
committee, of which George F. Hoar is chairman, and consisting of the following 
named gentlemen: George F. Hoar, William A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel S. 
Marshall, Clarkson N.Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps, and 
said gentlemen or a majority of the same, acting in their individual capacity, are 
hereby authorized to examine and determine the same upon the equities of the 
several cases; and when such award shall be made we hereby severally agree to 
abide by the same, aad such of us as may become members of the House of 
Representatives under this arrangement hereby severally agree to sustain by our 
influence and votes the joint resolution hereinafter set forth. 

ED. E. KIDD. 

GEORGE M. STAFFORD. 

RTJFFIN R BEASLEY. 

JAMES BRICE. 

E. F. X. DUGAS. 

GEORGE A. KELLY, 

EDMUND McCALLUM. 

J. O. QUINN. 

JOHN J. HORAN. 

THOMAS R. YAUGHAN. 

CHARLES SCHULER. 

A. D. LAND. 

WILLIAM F. SCHWING. 

JOHN L. SCALES. 
As a contestant for a seat in the lower House, I sign the above agreement. 

W. H. KEYS. 

JAMES JEFFRIES. 

R. L. LUCKETT. 

C. C. DUNN, 
By A. H. Leonard, Agent and Attorney. 



31 

And the undersigned, claiming to have been elected Senators from the Eighth 
and Twenty-Second Senatorial Districts, hereby agree to submit their claims to 
the foregoing award, and in all respects to abide the result of the same 

F. S. GOODE. 
J. B. ELAM. 
And the undersigned, holding certificates from the Eeturning Board, hereby 
severally agree that on the coming in of the award of the foregoing arbitrators 
they will, when the same shall have been ratified by the report of the Committee 
on Elections and cmalifications oi the body in session in the btate House claim- 
ing to be the House of Bepresentatives, attend the sittings of said House for the 
sole purpose of adopting said report, and if the said report shall be adopted and 
the members embraced in the foregoing report shall be seated, then the under- 
signed severally agree that immediately upon the adoption of said report they 
will vote for the following resolution : 

Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That said Assembly 
without approving the same, will not disturb the present State go, eminent, 
claiming to have been elected in 1872, known as the Kellogg government, or 
seek to impeach the Governor for any past official acts, and that henceforth we 
will accord to said Governor all necessary and legitimate support in maintaining 
the laws and in advancing the peace and prosperity of the people of this State, 
£nd that the House of Representatives as to its members as constituted under ihe 
award of George P. Hoar, W. A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel L. Marshall, Clark- 
son N. Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps shall remain without 
change, except by resignation or death of members until a new general election, 
and that the Senate as herein recognized shall also remain unchanged, except so 
far as that body shall make changes on contest. 

JOHN YOUNG, 

E. D. ESTILLETTE, 

A. D. LAFARGE, 

G. L. HALL, 

J. A. BLAFFER, 

E. CABMOUCHE, 

W. W. CARLOSS, 

G. W. B. BAYLEY, 

E. A. DUBR, 

R. P. EDWARDS, 

SEABORN JONES, 

T. J. JOHNSON, 

WILLIAM MA.GEE, 

H. C. MITCHELL, 

W. McALPIN, 

THOMAS E. MEREDITH, 

A. NUNEZ, 

W. H. PIPES, 

G. M. RICHARDSON, 

JOHN L. SCALES, 

D'. W. SELF, 

W. P. SMITH, 

CHARLES SCHULER, 

Y. VIDRINE, 

JAMES WEBB, 

R. B. WALTERS, 

M. SIBILSKI. 

This protocol was not adopted without much opposition ; Mr. 
McEnery, Mr. E. John Ellis, Congressman elect, and others made 
violent speeches at a public meeting, in denunciation of this " sur- 
render of their rights, " as they termed it, but the agreement was 
ratified by a majority of the Democratic caucus, and in pursuance of 
its terms, the Committee made the following award : 



32 

THE AWARD. 

New York, March 13, 1875. 

The undersigned, having been requested to examine the claims of the persons 
hereinafter named to sea*s in the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
State of Louisiana, and having examined the returns and the evidence before the 
Returning Board, and much other real and written evidence relating to such 
claims, are of the opinion, and do hereby find, award and determine— That F. 
S. Goode is entitled to a seat in the Senate from the Twenty-second Senatorial 
District; and that J. B. Elam is not entitled to a seat in the Senate from the 
Eighth Senatorial District; and that the following named persons are entitled to 
seats in the House of Representatives from the following named parishes, 
respectively : 

From the parish of Assumption, R. R. Beasley and E. F. Dugas; from the 
parish of Bienville, James Brice; from the parish of De Soto, J. L. Scales and 
Charles Schuler; from the parish of Jackson, E. E. Kidd; from the parish of 
Rapides, Jas. Jeflries, R. L. Luckett and G. W. Stafford; from the parish of 
Terrebonne, Ed. McCullum and W. H. Keys; from tbe parish of "Winn, George 
A. Kelly. 

And that the following named persons are not entitled to seats which they 
claim from the following named parishes respectively, but that the persons now 
holding seats from said parishes are entitled to retain the seats now held by them : 
From the parish of Avoyelles, J. O. Quinn; from the parish of Iberia, W r . F. 
Schwing ; from the parish of Caddo, A. D . Land, Thomas R. Vaughan and John 
J. Horan. 

We are further of opinion that no person is entitled to a seat from the parish 
of Grant. 

In regard to most of the cases, the undersigned are unanimous. As to the 
others, the decision is that of the majority. 

GEORGE F. HOAR. 

W. A. WHEELER. 

WILLIAM P. FRYE. 

CHARLES FOSTER. 

W. WALTER PHELPS. 

CLARKSON N. POTTER. 

S. S. MARSHALL. 

THE ADJUSTMENT CARRIED OUT IN GOOD FAITH. 

The award was duly transmitted to Governor Kellogg, and 
though no stipulation to that effect was contained in tbe protocol, 
or in any agreement entered into by him, still in order to show the 
good faith of the Republicans and to secure as early as possible the 
return of peace and prosperity which it was believed would result 
from this adjustment, he immediately convened an extra session of 
the Legislature to meet on the fourteenth day of April following. 
The Legislature met on that day. The democratic members mani- 
fested their confidence in the good faith of the republicans by taking 
their seats and answering to the roll-call with Speaker Hahn of the 
regular session in the chair, and the clerk of the regular session 
calling the roll. The award and other papers with the petitions of 
the contestants were referred to the Committee on contested elections 
appointed at the regular session, no change being made in the per- 



33 

sonnel of that Committee, except by filling a vacancy. They re- 
ported to the House according to the terms of the award, when the 
previous question was moved and carried by an almost unanimous 
vote, the main question was ordered and the report of the committee 
was adopted, whereupon the Republicans unseated, gracefully with- 
drew, and the Democrats to whom seats were awarded were sworn 
in and took their places. The joint resolution set forth in the pro- 
tocol was offered by the Democratic member from Claiborne, and 
was adopted with but eighteen (18) dissentients in a vote of one 
hundred and seven (107), five of the eighteen being Republicans 
who did not favor the adjustment. Subsequently, the Senator who 
was declared by the award entitled to his seat presented himself 
before the Senate, the colored Senator, who occupied his place 
and who represented a district in which the colored people were in 
the majority, withdrew, and the Senator declared elected by the 
award was sworn in and took his seat. The joint resolution recog- 
nizing the Kellogg government, previously passed by the House, 
was adopted by the Senate, was duly signed and promulgated, 
and forms Act No. 1 of the extra session of 1875. It is set forth in 
full in the Appendix as Exhibit F. See also Exhibit E. 

DEDUCTIONS. 

It is submitted that the facts herein set forth, regarded from any 
logical point of view, show clearly: 

1. That Kellogg was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1872 by the 
votes actually cast.* 

2. That Governor Kellogg has at all times courted an investiga- 
tion into his election, offering to abide by the result of that enquiry, 
and that Mr. McEnery has assented to these proposals only when 
his case seemed most desperate. 

3. That as a matter of fact, both Kellogg, and eventually Mc- 
Enery, did agree to submit their respective claims to the governor- 
ship, first to the Foster sub-committee, and afterwards to the entire 
committee, of which Hon. George F. Hoar was chairman. 

♦If it be claimed that the seating of George A. Sheridan, Fusion candidate for Congress- 
man at large on the last day of the session of the Forty-third Congress, is inconsistent with 
the assumption that Governor Kellogg was elected, it is only necessary to refer to the fact 
that Sheridan nowhere in his brief claims that Kellogg was not elected and that the returns 
of the Fusionists themselves (vide pp. 81-82 Senate report,) show that Kellogg ran 1571 ahead 
of Pinchback, Sheridan's competitor, and more than 1000 votes over Pinchback less Mc- 
Enery's vote over Sheridan, and according to the returns of the Lynch (legal) Returning 
Board, Kellogg received 3943 votes more than Pinchback. Vide pp. 190 & 203 Senate Report. 

3 



34 

4. That a large majority of the Democratic members and those 
claiming to be members of the General Assembly, in a formal proto- 
col signed by them, agreed to submit the claims of those of their 
number who were contestants to the arbitrament of the Congres- 
sional committee, of which Hon. George F. Hoar was chairman, 
agreeing that if the aw ard made by this committee should be car- 
ried out in good faith by the Republicans, they, the Democrats, 
would unite with the Republican members in the passage of a joint 
resolution recognizing the Kellogg government. 

5. That the Congressional Committee, composed of Hon. George 
F. Hoar, chairman, W. A. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Charles Foster, 
William Walter Phelps, C. N. Potter and S. S. Marshall, 
acting upon the terms of this written protocol, which decl ared 
the object of said protocol to be the final settlement of the con- 
troversy growing out of the elections of 1872 and 1874 in Louisi- 
ana, made an award regarding the claims of certain persons to 
seats in the Legislature, which award was transmitted to Governor 
Kellogg and was carried out in good faith by the Republicans. 
That thereupon the Democratic members of the General Assembly 
united with the Republicans in the passage of the joint resolution 
set forth in the protocol of adjustment recognizing the Kellogg 
government and providing that the status of both branches of 
the Legislature as established by the award (one- half of the 
Senate thus recognized having been elected on the same ticket 
with Governor Kellogg in 1872,) should not be disturbed until the 
next general election, and providing further that this Legislature 
should accord to Governor Kellogg all necessary support in main- 
taining the laws, which act was duly approved and promulgated and 
forms Act No. 1 of the extra session of 1875. 

In conclusion it is submitted that Mr. McEnery and his friends 
are estopped in all honor from further questioning the title of Gov- 
ernor Kellogg as Governor of Louisiana; first, because Mr. Mc- 
Enery agreed to submit his claims to the Congressional Committee, 
and a majority of this committee have expressed their opinion that 
Governor Kellogg was elected in 1872; secondly, because his own 
partisans in the present Legislature, constituting a majority in the 
lower House, which Legislature is accepted on all sides as the un- 
disputed Legislature of the State, have almost unanimously passed 



35 

a joint resolution recognizing Governor Kellogg as Governor of the 
State; thirdly, because Mr. McEnery has always professed to desire 
some settlement of the heretofore pending controversy which would 
bring peace and quiet to the State, and it can not be denied that these 
results have followed from the adoption of the adjustment; and lastly, 
because Mr. McEnery aud his friends, as zealous and consistent up- 
holders of the doctrine of State rights, will surely not ask the Con- 
gress of the United States to interfere and by its action to annul the 
solemn act of the recognized and unquestioned Legislature of a 
sovereign State iu a matter pertaining exclusively to its own domes- 
tic affairs. 



APPENDIX. 



EXHIBIT A. 

Beport on the Proceedings of the Fourth of January, 1875. 

New Orleans, January 11, 1875. 

To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the 
State of Louisiana: 

_ Gentlemen — Your committee selected to prepare a statement of the revolu- 
tionary proceedings that transpired in the hall of the House of Representatives 
on Monday, January 4, 1875, beg leave to submit the following statement, and 
recommend that it be immediately forwarded to the Congress of the United 
States. Respectfully, 

JAMES S. MATTHEWS, 
CHARLES W. LOWELL, 
GEORGE DRURY, 
W. F. SOUTHARD, 
R. R. RAY. 

The returns of the election held November 2, 1874, as promulgated by the 
proper returning officers thereof according to law, showed that there were elected 
to the House fifty-three Republicans and fifty-three Democrats, and there were 
five seats for which the returning officers had made no returns and had referred 
the decision of their right to hold them to the General Assembly. The whole 
number of the House of Representatives is 111. A quorum is a majority of the 
members elected, and was at that time fifty-four — -the quorum when the whole 
number is seated is fifty-six. 

A few days prior to the day fixed for the meeting of the General Assembly, a 
posse of unauthorized persons secretly kidnapped A. J. Cousin, a Republican 
member, and by force and violence conveyed him out of the city under color of 
a pretended charge of embezzlement of $15, across Lake Pontchartrain to a dis- 
tant parish, where they held him in confinement until after the day for the meet- 
ing of the General Assembly. They afterwai'd released him, the very men who 
made the charge going on his bond, and acknowledging that their object in ar- 
resting and detaining him was to break a Republican majority. Certain parties 
in the meanwhile, sought by the payment of several thousand dollars to certain 
Republican members to bribe three of them to vote for the Democratic nominee 
for Speaker. Attempts were made to kidnap other Republican members. 

Public and repeated threats were made for weeks previous to the fourth of Jan- 
uary of violence and assassination toward certain Republican members of the 
General Assembly. These threats and menaces were repeated, confirmed and in- 
dorsed by the press of the opposition throughout the State. In consequence of 
information in his possession that organized violence was intended to be use 1 to 
influence the organization of the House, the Governor placed the State House 
under the military command of General Hugh J. Campbell, of the State militia, 
who was ordered to assist and sustain the police. Under this order General H. 
J. Campbell excluded from the building on Monday all but officials of the State 
government, members of the General Assembly and persons claiming to be mem- 
bers, judges, members of Congress and members of the United States civil, mili- 
tary and naval service. 

The constitutional provision to govern the organization of the House is as fol- 
lows: 



38 

Article 23. The House of Representatives shall choose its Speaker and other 
officers. 

Article 34. Each house of the General Assembly shall judge of the qualifica- 
tions, elections and returns of its members; but a contested election shall be 
determined in such manner as may be prescribed by law. 

Article 36. Each house of the General Assembly shall keep and publish, 
■weekly, a journal of its proceedings, and the yeas and nays of the members on 
any question, at the desire of any two of them, shall be entered on the journal. 

The law governing the organization of the House is as follows: 

Section forty- four, act No. 98, approved November 30, 1872: That it shall be 
the duty of the Secretary of State to transmit to the Clerk of the House of Rep- 
resentatives and the Secretary of the Senate of the last General Assembly, a list 
of the names of such persons as, according to the returns, shall have been 
elected to either branch of the General Assembly ; and it shall be the duty of the 
said Clerk and Secretery to place the names of the Representatives and Senators 
elect so furnished upon the roll of the House and of the Senate respectively; and 
those Representatives and Senators whose names are so placed by the Clerk and 
Secretary respectively, in accordance with the foregoing provisions, and none 
other, shall be competent to organize the House of Representatives or Senate. 
Nothing in this act shall be construed to conflict with article thirty-four of the 
constitution of the State. 

At 12 M. Monday, January 4, 1875, the State House being surrounded by an 
excited crowd of several thousand persons, the members assembled in the hall of 
the House, and the Chief Clerk called the roll of the House. Immediately after- 
ward, or a little before the Clerk had finished the announcement of the number 
of members who answered to their names, which was 102, Mr. Billieu. Repre- 
sentative from Lafourche, moved that L. A. Wiltz, Re- resentative from Orleans, 
be elected temporary Speaker. The Chief Clerk replied that the legal motion 
was to elect a Speaker. Mr. Billieu, paying no attention to the protest of the 
Clerk, proceeded hurriedly to put his own motion against the protest of all the 
Republican Representatives. The motion was put in a quick and excited man- 
ner, and not in a loud voice, and was voted for only by a portion of even the 
Democratic members. The negative was not put at all. Mr. Wiltz had previously 
taken a position near the Clerk's desk, and as quick as thought upon the putting 
of the motion, -without waiting for any announcement of the vote, he sprang to the 
Speaker's desk where the Clerk was standing, seized the gavel from his hand, and 
pushed the Clerk violently off the stand and declared himself temporary Speaker. 
Following him was W. T. Houston, first justice of the peace, parish of Orleans, 
who took from his pocket a book looking like a Bible, and proceeded to go 
through the form of administering an oath. 

Mr. Wiltz, as temporary Speaker, assumed to administer the oath to the mem- 
bers en masse, against the protest of Republican members. Some Democratic 
member then made a motion to elect a Mr. Trezevant as Clerk. Mr. Wiltz put 
the motion and declared it carried. 

Mr. Trezevant at once sprang forward and took the Clerk's chair. 

Immediately after, in a hurried and excited manner, a Mr. Flood was elected 
Sergeant-at-Arms, upon motion of a Democratic member; also, a motion was 
made from the same side of the House thi-t a number of assistant sergeants-at- 
arms be appointed by the Chair, which the Chair declared carried, when a large 
number of persons at once appeared, wearing badges on which was printed "As- 
sistant Sergeant-at-Arms." While all the above motions were being put, Repub- 
lican numbers objected, and called for the yeas and nays, all of which was dis- 
regarded by the acting Speaker. 

Colonel Lowell, Republican member, made the point of order that the consti- 
tution of the State allowed any two members to call the yeas and nays on any 
motion. Mr. Wiltz decided the point of order not well taken. (See constitu- 
tional provision above. ) 

The pretended House then proceeded, in defiance of the law, to swear in five 
additional Democratic members, to wit: James Bright, of Bienville; Charles 
Schuler and John L. Scales, of De Soto; C. C. Dunn, of Grant, and George S. 
Kelley, of Winn, by which the Democrats gave themselves a majority. 

The Republicans protested against this violence and lawlessness, but their 



39 

protests were disregarded. The Democrats tbwi assumed to elect a permanent 
Speaker. Mr. Wiltz declared himself elected after going through the usual 
form, having received, as he claims, fifty-five votes, which included the five men 
seated in violation of law. the Republican members withdrawing and not voting, 
as they deemed the proceedings illegal. About the time of the withdrawal of the 
Republican members of the House, Mr. Wiltz gave or caused instruction to be 
given to the persons assuming to be sergeants-at-arms not to allow any one to 
pass out of or to enter the House. Great commotion at once ensued, and quite 
a number of knives and revolvers were drawn and displayed in a threatening 
manner. Most of the Republican members had already left the room amid great 
confusion, when Mr. Dupre, of Orleans (Democratic member), moved that the 
Speaker be requested to call on the United States troops to preserve the peace of 
the House. The motion prevailed, and a committee, of which Mr. Dupre was 
appointed chairman, was appointed to wait on General De Trobriand and re- 
quest the interference of United States troops to preserve the peace. In a short 
time the committee returned, accompanied by General De J^robriand and staff. 
Upon the appearance of General De Trobriand on the floor, loud applause came 
from the Democratic side of the House. General De Trobriand moved to the 
Speaker's desk, and Mr. Wiltz stated in substance the reason for his being sum- 
moned, and informed him of the impossibility of his being able to enforce order 
and preserve the peace. 

General De Trobriand in substance (the committee being unable to get the 
exact words) asked Mr. Wiltz whether it was not possible for him to preserve 
order and keep the peace, without calling calling upon him as a United States 
officer. Mr. Wiltz replied that it was impossible; that he had already instructed 
his Sergeant-at-Arms to do so. General De Trobriand then took action in the 
matter, and quiet was restored with little trouble. Mr. Wiltz then assured Gen- 
eral De Trobriand that his coming had prevented bloodshed, and as your com- 
mittee is reliably informed, on motion, thanked him in the name of the General 
Assembly of Louisiana for his prompt response to the summons of the House, 
and the General retired. The Republican members then signed and presented 
the following application to the Governor, requesting the legal members be put 
in possession of the hall. 

New Orleans, January 4, 1875. 
Hie Excellency William P. Kellogg, Governor: 

Sru— The undersigned, members elect of the House of Representatives of the 
General Assembly of this S<ate, assembled at the hall of the House, in the State 
House, at 12 M. this day, and answered to the call made by the Clerk. Imme- 
diately thereafter the chair was forcibly taken possession of, in violation of law, 
and an attempt was made to organize the House contrary to law. We can not 
obtain our legal rights unless the members elect are placed in possession of the 
hall. Whenever the hall is cleared of all persons save the gentlemen elected we 
will proceed to organize. We therefore invoke your aid in placing the hall in 
possession of the members elect, that we may attend to the performance of our 
duties. Respectfully, 

James S. Matthews, parish ot Tensas. 

E. W. Dewees, parish of Red River. 

E. L. Pierson, parish of Natchitoches. 
O. S. Hunsaker, parish of St. James. 
V. Dickenson, parisn of St. James. 

P. Jones Yorke, parish of Carroll. 

C. W. Lowell, parish of Jefferson. 

J. D. Jourdain, seventh ward, parish of Orleans. 

R. R. Ray, parish of East Feliciana. 

J. Ross Stewart, parish of Tensas. 

L. J. Souer, parish of Avoyelles. 

Samuel Thomas, parish of Bossier. 

F. Marie, parish of Terrebonne. 
James Randall, parish of Concordia. 
William Crawford, parish of Rapides. 
J. J. Johnson, parish of Caddo. 



40 

Isaac Sutton, parish of St. Mary. 

Henry Demas, parish of St. John the Baptist. 

C. W. Keating, parish of Caddo. 
J. E. Parker, parish of Jefferson. 

George Gracien, fifteenth ward, parish of Orleans. 

L. Butler, parish of Ascension. 

Cain Sartain, parish of Carroll. 

G. H. Hill, parish of Ascension. 

J. M. Carville, parish of Iberville. 

J. S. Davidson, parish or Iberville. 

William Ridgely, parish ol Concordia. 

John De Lacey, parish of Rapides. 

E. D. Triplet, parish of East Baton Rouge. 

George Drury, parish of Assumption. 

E. A. Hubeau, parish of Jefferson. 
H. Raby, parish of Natchitoches. 

J. Connaughton, parish of Rapides. 
William Murrell, parish of Madison. 

D. C. Hill, parish of Ouachita. 

W. F. Southard, parish of Ouachita. 

F. R. Wright, parish of Terrebonne. 
Emile Honore, parish of Pointe Coupee. 
J. P. Wilson, parish of East Baton Rouge. 
L. W. Baker, parish of Bossier. 

W. G. Lane, parish of East Baton Rouge. 

R. Poindexter, parish of Assumption. 

M. Hahn, parish of St. Charles. 

F. A. Woods, parish of West Baton Rouge. 

A. B. Levisee, parish of Caddo. 

J. W. Armstead, parish of West Feliciana. 

Milton Jones, parish of Pointe Coupee. 

A. E. Milon, parish of Plaquemines. 

L. A. Snaer, parish of Iberia. 

F. M. Grant, parish of Morehouse. 

S. R. Pile, parish of St. Mary. 

R. F. Guichard, parish of St. Bernard. 

I have consented to sign this document on the ground that the Conservative 
members of the House have set a precedent by appointing a special committee 
to wait on General De Trobriand, who immediately appeared at the bar of the 
House, escorted by said special committee. 

ROBERT F. GUICHARD, 

Representative of St. Bernard. 

This was signed by fifty-two legally elected and returned members. In re- 
sponse to this application the Governor applied to the military force of the 
United States to assist his officers in expelling intruders and disturbers of the 
peace, and preserving older, which assistance was rendered, and by it order 
was restored. The Republican members returned to the hall. 

When the members returned to the hall, following General De Trobriand, at 
his request and under his protection, and attempted to follow him through the 
door, the sergeant-at-arms at the door, at the order of Mr. Wiltz, closed the door 
in their faces, and forcibly prevented them from entering— and they were not 
allowed to enter until the attention of General De Trobriand was called to the 
fact ; and at his order the Republican members were admitted, and the five in- 
truders were expelled. 

The Democratic members, with Mr. Wiltz at their head, then withdrew, and 
the House then proceeded to organize according to law. 

State of Louisiana, 
Office of Secretary of State, 
New Orleans, January 6, 1875. 

I hereby certify that the foregoing fifty-two signatures are the genuine signa- 
tures of members declared duly elected to the House of Representatives of the 



41 

State of Louisiana, as certified to me by the Returning Board of said State, and 
as by me certified to the Clerk of said House of Representatives as required by 
law - P. G. DESLONDE, 

Secretary of State. 
I certify that the foregoing protest contained the genuine signatures of fifty- 
two members of the House of Representatives whose names are upon the list 
furnished me by the Secretary of State, in conformity with law, and I further 
certify that all said members answered to their names at the roll call made by me 
at twelve o'clock M. on Monday, the fourth day of January, 1875, being a 



majority of all the members present. 



WILLIAM VIGERS, 
Chief Clerk House of Representatives. 



EXHIBIT B 

Sioorn Statement of B. P. Blanchard, State Register of Voters under Warmoth. 

United States of America, District of Louisiana, State of Louisiana, city of 
New Orleans — Be it known, that on this second day of September, A. D. 1873, 
personally appeared before the undersigned, a United States Commissioner in 
and for the District of Louisiana, duly commissioned and sworn, Brainard P. 
Blanchard. who being duly sworn deposes and says: That he was appointed by 
Henry C. Warmonth, Governor of the State of Louisiana, to the office of State 
Registrar of Voters, being also, by virtue of said office, ex-officio Supervisor of 
Registration in and for the parish of Orleans; that he filled the said office during 
the years 1870, 1871 and 1872; that in the last named year he was in full political 
sympathy with the Liberal movement, and subsequently, upon the fusion of the 
Liberal and Democratic parties with what was known as and styled the Fusion 
party, and in conjunction with others of the same political party he devised plans 
for carrying the general election in the State of Louisiana on November 4, 1872, 
in favor of the said Fusion party and their candidates for presidential electors, 
Congress and State and municipal offices; that, with this object in view, he pro- 
posed to take advantage of all the powers conferred upon him by the acts of the 
General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, numbered respectively acts Nos. 99 
and 100, approved Mai ch 16, 1870, and known as the registration and election 
laws of 1870. 

That in furtherance of this scheme he caused a careful compilation to be made 
of the lists of deceased male persons over twenty-one years of age who had died 
since the close of the registration in 1870, which lists were required by law to be 
furnished to him by the sextons of the various cemeteries in the parish of 
Orleans, and that said lists, so compiled, were carefully collated with the regis- 
tration books and the registry number and the election precinct in which the 
deceased was registered were noted. That instead of carrying out to the full 
letter the provisions of section seven of the registration law above referred to he 
caused to be erased from the lists of registered voters only the names of such 
deceased electors as were well known in the community, and in cases where the 
deceased was an obscure personage (a large majority of the whole number being 
composed of such) he caused to be made out a duplicate registration certificate 
in his name, the same to be retained and used at the general election as herein- 
after set forth. That for this purpose he caused to be printed facsimiles of the 
blank forms of duplicate registration certificates used in 1870, which were in a 
different style of type from those intended to be used in 1872, in order to have 
them filled up with the names of deceased electors as above stated. That the 
number of duplicate certificates, so filled up for the purpose aforesaid was as 
follows, more or less : For the — 

First ward 76 

Second ward 85 

Third ward 243 



42 

Fourth ward 48 

Fifth -ward 61 

Sixth ward 52 

Seventh ward 69 

Eighth ward 35 

Ninth ward 17 

Tenth ward 51 

Eleventh ward 44 

Twelfth ward 21 

Thirteenth ward 16 

Fourteenth ward 7 

Total 855 

Deponent further says, that to his knowledge a large number of certificates of 
registration had been issued in 1870, in the names of fictitious presons; that he 
caused a careful examination of the books of registration to be made, and of 
other records and memoranda in his possession, to ascertain the number of such 
fraudulent registries, and also made efforts to ascertain in whose possession such 
papers in the names of fictitious persons were, and that he obtained possesion 
of some two thousand of such papers, and in relation to such of said papers as he 
could not obtain possession of the following course was pursued: When ever 
he ascertained that they were in the hands of persons belonging to the Republi- 
can party, he then, and during registration, caused the said fictitious names to 
be erased from the registry lists as fraudulent; but in all cases where he ascer- 
tained that such papers were in the possession of persons in the interest of the 
Fusion party, he instruced the assistant supervisors of registration not to erase 
such fictitious names from the books, in cases where he had confidence in those 
officers, but in cases where he had reason to suspect the fidelity of any assistant 
supervisor to the Fusion cause, or to believe that any of them would not assist in 
or abet such manipulation, he prohibited them from making any erasures what- 
ever, reserving that work for himself or assiguing it to some confidential clerk or 
confidential agent whom he could implicitly trust, as will more fully appear by 
the documents hereto annexed, and marked "A" and "B." 

Deponent further says that he was aware of the existence of large numbers of 
fraudulent naturalization papers issued in 1868 by the clerks of district courts in 
the parish of Orleans and other large parishes, and that in 1870, in his circular 
of instructions to supervisors of registration, he directed them not to register 
any person naturalized between July 4 and October 24, except such as were natu- 
ralized in the Frst and Second District Courts of the parish of Orleans; that the 
number naturalized between the dates above cited was reported by his predeces- 
sor, Hon. William Baker, chairman of the board of registration, in his report to 
the General Assembly, dated New Orleans, January 10, 1869, as follows: 

Tables showing the number of persons registered in each ward (first excepted) of the 
parish of Orleans, who were naturalized between July 4 and October 24, 1868. 

Ward. Number. 

First ward (no record) 

Second ward 538 

Third ward 903 

Fourth ward ■ 320 

Fifth ward 989 

Sixth ward 359 

Seventh ward 423 

Eighth ward 484 

Ninth ward 540 

Tenth ward 438 

Eleventh ward 333 

Eight bank (Algiers) 161 

Total 5488 



43 

» 

And that the result of these instructions not to recognize the validity of such 
naturalization was made manifest by the result of the registration of naturalized 
foreigners in 1870, the registration for Orleans parish in that year being entirely 
new and complete. 

Table showing the number of persons naturalized between Julv 4 anrl October 24, 
1868, and July 4 and October 28, 1870, registered in 1870. 

Precinct or Ward. 186S 1870. Total. 

First 96 70 166 

Second 142 145 287 

Third 223 149 372 

Fourth 100 53 153 

Fifth 134 141 275 

Sixth 65 58 123 

Seventh 150 85 235 

Eighth 178 110 288 

Ninth •••• 197 93 290 

Tenth 107 102 209 

Eleventh 106 87 193 

Twelfth 54 46 100 

Thirteenth 26 18 44 

Fourteenth 15 7 22 

Fifteenth 43 11 54 

Total 1636 1175 2811 

As will more fully appear on pages sis, seven, eight and nine of a report to the 
General Assembly of Louisiana, by the deponent, as State Registrar of Voters, 
dated January 31, 1871 — a printed copy of which is hereto appended, and marked 
"C." That the reason for such ruling by the deponent in 1870 was that he knew 
that these naturalization papers, fraudulently issued, were iu the hands of per- 
sons inimical to the Republican party, with which party he was at that time 
politically affiliated; that the judges and clerks of courts were in 1868 entirely, 
and in 1870, with only two exceptions, members of the Democratic party, and 
that he consequently endeavored to prevent the use of said fraudulent naturaliza- 
tion papers by the Democratic party; that he repeated the instructions to super- 
visors of registration in this regard in his pamphlet of instructions in 1872, 
pages seven and eight — a printed copy of which is hereunto annexed and marked 
"D;" but upon the fusiou of the Liberal and Democratic parties deponent, know- 
ing that large numbers of said fraudulent naturalization papers were in the hands 
of Fusionists and could be used in the interest of the Fusion party, revoked his 
previous instructions as will appear by circular No. 5, issued by deponent, hereto 
annexed and marked "E," and that the result of such change iu his ruling was 
that a large number of such papers fraudulently issued were used by persons 
registering in 1872: 

Table showing the number of persons naturalized between July 4, 1868. and October 
24, 1868, and July 4, 1872, and October 28. 1872, added to the registry lists in 
1872, in each election precinot, parish of Orleans: 

Precinct. 1868. 1872. Total. 

First 114 140 254 

Second 131 202 333 

Third 242 395 637 

Fourth 93 212 305 

Fifth I8 7 421 608 

Sixth".'.'.'.'.'.' 92 228 320 

Seventh 75 183 258 

Eighth 129 173 302 

Ninth 175 202 372 

Tenth 143 159 302 

Eleventh 102 118 220 

Twelfth 44 56 100 



39 


51 


29 


49 


64 


127 



44 

Thirteenth 12 

Fourteenth 20 

Fifteenth 63 

Total 1622 2621 4243 

And deponent firmly believes that a large number of the naturalization papers 
issued in 1872, to the extent of 2000, at least, were improperly so issued. 

Deponent further says that he instructed the assistant supervisors of registra- 
tion for the parish of Orleans that in all cases where persons who had been 
registered in 1870 in other wards than those in which they resided in 1872, and 
who should apply for registration on account of change of residence, to require 
such persons to surrender the certificates of registration of 1870 to them (the 
assistant supervisors), to be by them returned to the office of deponent, State 
Kegistrar of Voters, ostensibly for the purpose of cancellation and erasure on the 
books, but in reality to be preserved and voted on at the ensuing general election, 
in the manner hereinafter set forth, and that this course was pursued and per- 
sisted in notwithstanding the formal protest of the United States supervisors of 
election, one of which is hereto annexed and marked "F." The certificates of 
registration so returned deponent caused to be examined and sorted out in his 
office, and such as were not marked or checked in any way by the United States 
supervisors of election were preserved to be voted upon in the wards from which 
they were originally issued, and only such were returned to the ward officers for 
cancellation and erasure as were deemed unfit or unsafe for use by repeating 
voters, as is more fully shown by the affidavit of H. L. Downes, hereto attached 
and marked " G." The number so cancelled was to the following extent only: 

Firat precinct 80 

Second precinct 43 

Third precinct 101 

Fourth precinct 79 

Fifth precinct, record lost 

Sixth precinct 115 

Seventh precinct 83 

Eighth precinct, record lost 

Ninth precinct 14 

Tenth precinct 36 

Eleventh precinct 103 

Twelfth precinct 11 

Thirteenth precinct 

Fourteenth precinct 12 

Fifteenth precinct 2 

Total 579 

Deponent further says that he also instructed assistant supervisors of registra- 
tion, in the parish of Orleans, that whenever they found upon the registry of 
1870 names of persons making their marks (X), and supposed to be negroes and 
not known personally to them, to procure two persons, registered voters in their 
respective wards, to prepare a list of such names and make an affidavit that they 
"had reason to believe and did believe" that the persons named therein were not 
residing in the ward on the tenth day preceding the election, and the assistant 
supervisors were directed to erase from the lists of voters all names put down in 
said affidavits, and this was done, although the law made it the duty of the Board 
of Metropolitan Police Commissioners to cause a canvass of the city of New Or- 
leans, and prescribed that the names of such persons as should be reported by 
them as "not found" only should be stricken from the registry list. Such affida- 
vits were made in form similar to the one hereto annexed and marked "H," and 
resulted in the erasure from the books of the following number of names, sup- 
posed to be all colored men, namely: 

First ward 182 

Second ward 36 

Third ward 280 



45 

Fourth ward 309 

Fifth ward * .' . " * '.'.'. 223 

Sixth ward ' '..'..' . 353 

Seventh ward '. 38 'J 

Eighth ward 164 

Ninth ward 122 

Tenth ward 12 

Eleventh ward 40 

Twelfth ward '. ... 153 

Thirteenth ward 51 

Fourteenth ward 17 

lifteenth ward 144 

Total 2472 

In this connection see affidavit of James Parker, hereto annexed and marked. 

That this course was pursued notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Po- 
lice Commissioners did, in obedience to the provisions of section fifty of the elec- 
tion law, cause a canvass of the city to be made (as will appear by the document 
hereto annexed and marked I) and reported the names of persons "not found," 
and said names were by said deponent published in the official journal of the 
city and State, but that no names were erased from the list in consequence of 
such reports, but solely upon the affidavits above mentioned. Deponent further 
says that from the outset of registration in 1872, he was in constant communica- 
tion with the Democratic and Liberal campaign committees, and conjointly with 
them instructed the supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration through- 
out the State verbally, in addition to written or printed instructions, from time 
to time, to facilitate in every manner the registration of all white men known or 
supposed to be in favor of the Fusion candidates, and to throw every possible 
obstacle in the way of colored applicants for registration, such as requiring them 
to produce two witnesses to prove their identity and residence, delaying them by 
unnecessary questions and by other means, and that in compliance with such 
verbal instructions the assistant supervisors of registration would and did fre- 
quently select from the crowd of applicants for registration white men known to 
them as Democrats or Fusionists, and register them, and then close their offices 
before the hour prescribed by law, on the pretext that they were summoned to 
court or some similar excuse, thus leaving the colored men, many of whom could 
ill afford to lose their time, unregistered. The result of such instructions, and 
action consequent thereon, was the addition to the register list of a large excess 
of whites over colored men, as appears from the following table: 

Table showing the number of white and colored voters added to the registration of 
the parish of Orleans, in each precinct, in 1872. 

Wards. White. Colored. Total. 

First 1,379 324 1,703 

Second 1,672 418 2,090 

Third 2,518 882 3,400 

Fourth 1,H3 407 1,550 

Fifth 1,712 597 2,309 

Sixth 1,359 474 1,833 

Seventh 1,256 638 1,894 

Eighth 903 212 1,115 

Ninth 1,133 201 1,333 

Tenth 1,479 442 1,921 

Eleventh A 1,278 404 1,683 

Twelfth 593 192 785 

Thirteenth 311 154 465 

Fourteenth 144 125 269 

Fifteenth 458 299 757 

Grandtotal 17,338 5,769 23,107 

Being entirely out of proportion to the relative number of the two races in the 
city as shown by the late census. 



46 

Deponent further says that in order to annoy and hinder colored men in regis- 
tering he instructed the assistant supervisors to throw every possible obstacle in 
the way of the United States supervisors of election and deputy marshals ap- 
pointed to represent the Republican party, such as refusing them access to the 
books or permission to remain behind the railing, etc., and the assistant super- 
visors were further instructed that whenever any considerable number of uegroes 
were waiting for registration they should raise some frivolous objection to the 
action of the United States officials and refuse to submit to the requirements of 
the enforcement acts, which conduct frequently resulted in the arrest of assistant 
supervisors and the closing of their offices some times for the entire day, large 
numbers of voters being thus deprived of registration. That these instructions 
were carried out will appear more fully by the documents annexed and marked 
K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T and U; and that, in addition to the cases mentioned 
therein, there were many other arrests of assisant supervisors in consequence of 
adherence to said instructions, of which depodent has at present no record. 

Deponent further says that commissioners of election for the parish of Orleans 
were all appointed by him from among persons known to be in the interest of 
of the Fusion party, and strong partisans thereof; that on the second of Novem- 
ber he received from S. B. Fackard, on behalf of the Republican State Central 
Committee, a communication, hereto annexed and marked V, requesting the 
appointment of one commissioner at each poll to represent the Republican party, 
but that deponent refused to accede to the request, as will appear by his answer 
to said Packard, hereto attached and marked W; that the commissioners of 
election were instructed to facilitate, in every possible manner, the voting of 
persons known to be Fusionists, or who should offer to vote the Fusion ticket, 
and to obstruct and hinder the voting of Republicans; that they were instructed 
that whenever any person offered to vote the Fusion ticket they should not ques- 
tion him closely, but should suggest to him the requisite answers, and should de- 
cide quickly. 

Deponent further says that the polling places throughout tho parishes were 
selected with the view to the convenience of Fusion voters, and were located as 
remotely and as difficult of access as possible from the neighborhoods chiefly 
inhabited by colored men; that whenever a poll was located in a colored neigh- 
borhood the commissioners were selected from persons notorious for their hos- 
tility to colored men, and said commissioners were instructed to hinder and 
delay all colored electors to the full extent of their power. 

Deponent further says that in each ward of the city of New Orleans he em- 
ployed persons whom he intended to appoint commissioners of election, and 
whom he did subsequently so appoint, whose instructions were to prepare written 
lists in advance of the names ot all deceased persons (being voters) and of the 
wards in which they resided, whose names had not been erased from the registry 
lists as prepared by him, the said deponent; that these lists were ordered to be 
prepared upon paper similar to that provided for keeping the written lists of 
voters at the election, as required by section eleven of the election law of 1870, 
and they were instructed to strike from the poll list in advance the names of 
such persons, as required by section twelve of the above quoted law. Said com- 
missioners were also instructed to see that a number of Fusion ballots corres- 
ponding to the number of names thus erased from the lists were placed in the 
ballot boxes in their respective polls, so that the written lists and the number of 
ballots should tally exactly at the counting of the votes; they being left to devise 
their own mode of carrying out these latter instructions, but, the better to 
accomplish the object sought, they were instructed to open their polls in advance 
of the hour designated by Jaw, so that when voters presented themselves at the 
regular hour it should appear that some votes had already been cast; and these 
commissioners were also instructed to insert the list previously prepared as 
aforesaid, sheet by sheet, among the lists kept during the day, making the run- 
ning numbers correspond; and that these instructions were obeyed to the letter 
in eveiy instance, and that the names of 855 deceased persons, obtained and 
prepared as before related, were so erased and fraudulently marked as voted, and 
the same number of Fusion tickets were thus voted at the said election. 

Deponent further says, that by a forced and strained interpretation of section 
forty-one of the registration law, he appointed about three thousand persons in 



47 

the city of New Orleans, who were known to be violent partisans of the Fusion 
party, among them several of bad and dangerous character, to act as "peace 
officers" to take charge of the ballot boxes in the city of New Orleans, as further 
appears from the documents hereto annexed and marked X, Y and Z, and that to 
some of these men were intrusted the certificates of registration of 1870, which 
had been surrendered by persons who had removed to other wards, and collected 
and sorted out as hereinbefore described, and also with such fraudulent certifi- 
cates of registration of 1870 as were in the possession and control of himself, or 
of persons in the interest of the Fusion party, for the purpose of voting thereon, 
and that said certificates of registration were so voted on, to the knowledge of 
deponent, to the extent of 3500 votes, as is also shown by the deposition of Wal- 
ter S. Long, hereto attached, and marked AA. 

Deponent further says that the supervisors of registration appointed through- 
out the State were all in the interest of the Fusion party, and were selected not 
onfy on that account, but because of their supposed willingness and ability to 
carry the election in favor of that party, by whatever manipulation was possible 
and necessary under the registration and election laws; that in parishes where 
there was known to exist a large Republican majority, the supervisors were, in 
most cases, persons sent from New Orleans to the parishes in which they were to 
act, and men well known for their personal recklessness and unscrupulous charac- 
ter, and familiar with all the machinery used in manipulating elections and the 
powers conferred upon supervisors of registration by the laws; that said super- 
visors were instructed, verbally or otherwise, to impede in every possible manner 
the registration of colored voters, in such ways as closing their offices when large 
numbers of negroes were waiting for registration, alleging that they were out of 
blanks when in truth they were amply supplied, removing their offices to remote 
points, notifying only white men ol their location and giving no notice to the 
negroes; giving notice of the location of the office at one point, and establishing 
it at another without notice; establishing polling places without due notice, and 
so as to facilitate the casting of a large Fusion vote, and obstructing the voting 
of Republicans, especially ot colored men; that to further carry out the before 
recited determination to carry the election at any risk, deponent, without au- 
thority of law, directed that a new and complete registration should be made in 
the parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, St. James and Tangipa- 
hoa, each of which parishes was known to contain a large Republican majority, 
and a large excess of colored over white population, on the pretext that the books 
of previous registration could not be found, said books having been previously 
purposely made way with. In this connection deponent refers to the documents 
hereto attached and marked respectivelv: AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, Al, 
AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX and AY, to show 
both the manner in which the new registration was ordered and inaugurated, and 
the spirit in which it was carried out. The result of this action will be made 
evident by a comparison between the registration and election statistics of 1870 
and 1872, as shown by the following statement: 

Comparative table ot statistics of registration and election in the paria'aes of East 
Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, St. James aud Tangipahoa in ttie years 1870 
and 1872. 

Registered in Republican vote in 

Parish. 1870. 1872. 1870. 1872. 

East Baton Rouge 3099 3048 2440 1168 

West Baton Rouge 1367 1256 702 445 

St. James 3498 2723 1873 843 

Tangipahoa 1868 1530 845 Gil 

Total 9832 8557 5860 3067 

Thus showing a decrease of the number of registered in 1872 from that of 1870 in 
these four parishes of 1275, and a falling off of the Republican vote of 2793, for 
that the Fusionists registered their lull vote there can be no doubt. 

Deponent further says that in several other parishes in which a large colored 
majority existed, the opening of the books of registration was delayed by various 
means for a considerable period after the time prescribed by law, September 2. 



48 

Thus in Carroll parish, containing in 1870 a registered vote of 351 whites to 1588 
colored, the registration was not opened until October 12; Iberville, not until 
September 17; St. James, September 12; Natchitoches, September 17; Franklin, 
September 18; Winn, September 23; Caldwell, September 26; Cameron, Septem- 
ber 30; Vernon, September 20. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of St. Landry, one of the largest and 
most populous parishes in the State, and in which the supervisor exhibited a de- 
sire to afford fair facilities for registration to all classes, he was constantly 
checked and hindered by directions to move his office to points remote from the 
districts in which the negro population had a respectable ratio, and to establish 
his office at places where there were but few negroes or white Republicans, as will 
appear bv the documents hereto attached, and marked AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, 
BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BK. 

Deponent further states that he instructed the supervisor of registration in the 
several parishes to annoy and resist the United States supervisors of election in 
every manner possible, and that in most of the parishes his instructions were 
carried out and registration thereby greatly delayed, especially in the parish of 
West Feliciana, a very strong Republican parish, as will appear by the documents 
attached hereto and marked BL, BLL, BM, BN, BO, BP, BQ, BB, BS, BT and 
BU, and in regard to other parishes by those papers annexed and marked BV, 
BW, BX, BY, BZ and B2. 

Deponent further says that, besides the selection of supervisors on account of 
their political bias, many of them were appointed who were caDdidates for office 
on the Fusion ticket at the general election of November 4, 1872, for the purpose 
of stimulating them to extra exertions to cause themselves to be returned, and 
thus contribute to the general success of the entire Fusion ticket; that among 
the number J. H. Simmons, of Claiborne, was a candidate for police juror; G. 
H. Guptill, of Cameron, was a candidate for police juror; R. T. Carr, of De Soto, 
was a candidate lor sheriff; G. D. Wells, of Livingston, was a candidate for 
recorder of his parish; P. E. Lored, supervisor's clerk for Lafourche, was a can- 
didate for justice of the peace; E. L. Pierson, of Natchitoches, was a candidate 
for the House of Representatives ; I. G. P. Hoey, of Rapides, was a candidate for 
the House of Representatives; A. Chalarie, of Plaquemines, was a candidate for 
sheriff; A. Estopenal, of St. Bernard, was a candidate for sheriff; G. W. Coombs, 
of St. John the Baptist, was a candidate for justice of the peace; R. C. White, 
of St. Mary, was a candidate for Senator; Charles E. Steele, of Tensas, was a 
candidate for clerk of court (his brother being a candidate for district attorney) ; 
George L. Stinson, of Winn, was a candidate for recorder; Thomas Duffy, assist- 
ant supervisor fourth ward, Orleans, was a candidate for clerk of the Fourth Dis- 
trict Court; Thomas Fernon, same for seventh ward, Orleans, was a candidate 
for Representative; W. C. Kinsella, same for ninth ward, Orleans, was a candi- 
date for Representative, and C. C. Piper, clerk, thirteenth ward, was a candidate 
for constable. Seventh Justice Court, all of whom were elected by their own 
count, except Thomas Fernon; that the question being raised whether supervisors 
were eligible as candidates and vice versa, deponent received from the chairman 
of the Democratic campaign committee the communication hereto annexed and ' 
marked CA, to which he returned the reply hereto annexed and marked CB, and 
that this decision was made to encourage supervisors to become candidates and 
to return themselves elected. 

Deponent further says that he issued from time to time circulars of instruc- 
tions to supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration for their observance 
and guidance, copies of which are hereto annexed and marked CC, CD, CE, CF, 
CG, CH, CI, CK, and in addition thereto, with a view of preventing the United 
States supervisors ot election and other officials appointed and acting under the 
enforcement acts of Congress from taking any cognizance whatever ol the results 
of the election for State and parish officers, he issued to all supervisors of regis- 
tration a confidential letter of instructions, hereto annexed and marked CL, 
which, for greater security and secrecy, he caused to be sent to them by the 
hands of trustworthy agents, who were previously instructed by him as to the 
details necessary to be worked up to accomplish the object aimed at, namely, the 
success of the Fusion ticket at the general election; and that he prepared and 
supplied to the supervisors and assistant supervisors of registration throughout 



49 

the State two sets of blank forms of tally sheets, statements of votes, etc., one 
set of which was to be used for returns for presidential electors and members of 
Congress, and the other for State, parish and municipal officers only, with the 
intent of so manipulating the vote for the latter candidates that those running on 
the Fusion ticket' should be returned and declared elected in parishes where the 
vote showed a majority cast for the Eepublican candidates for Congress and 
presidential electors. 

Deponent further says, that in order more effectually to defeat and counteract 
the effect of the supervision and inspection of the registration and election by 
the United States officials, he sent to all supervisors a telegraphic dispatch, a 
copy of which is hereto attached and marked CM, which instructions deponent 
believes were faithfully carried out in a majority of the parishes, with the effect 
of excluding a large Republican vote at the election. 

Deponent further states that in the parish of Terrebonne, containing a large 
excess of Republican voters, the supervisor of registration originally appointed 
Mr. C. A. Buford, a resident of the parish; having been taken sick, he was super- 
seded by F. J. Stokes, a resident of Nbw Orleans, who was familiar with all the 
advantages possible to be taken by supervisors of registration under the State 
laws; that said Stokes, upon assuming charge of the office, gave out that he had 
no blanks, though an ample supply had been furnished to him, as is shown by 
documents hereto attached and marked CN and CO; and that said Stokes, with- 
out warrant of law, did issue a notice to all registered voters of that parish to 
come forward and submit their certificates of previous registration to his inspec- 
tion, to be countersigned or visaed, else they would not be allowed to vote on 
them, as is shown by a printed copy of his notice hereto attached and marked 
CP; and that the said Stokes did in this and many other ways hinder and im- 
pede the registration of Republican voters; and that said Stokes, knowing that a 
large Republican majority had been cast at the election of November 4, 1872, did 
fail and refuse to make a count of the ballots in three or more boxes, but fled to 
the city of New Orleans, leaving said boxes uncounted, alleging intimidation, but 
really with the avowed purpose and design of having the return of said parish 
thrown out by the returning board, and the Republican vote cast consequently 
excluded from the count, which was done; and furthermore, that the general 
bearing and demeanor of said Stokes toward Republicans was overbearing and 
arbitrary in the extreme, so much so that it was made a subject of complaint by 
parties in the Fusion interest, to the effect that Stokes' manner and action were 
injuring the party. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of Madison, which always contained 
a large excess of Republican voters, no returns of the election were made ac- 
cording to law, but that the supervisor of registration, W. J. Cahoone, a resi- 
dent of New Orleans, sent to the parish because of his known skill in the mani- 
pulation of elections, knowing that there had been a large Republican majority 
cast at the election, fled the parish at night and came by rail to New Orleans, 
bringing with him only fragmental memorandas, such as tally sheets, check lists, 
etc., from which he proceeded to fabricate his returns of the election of that 
parish; that for that purpose deponent furnished the said Cahoone with the nec- 
essary blanks and directed his clerk to instruct and assist the said Cahoone in 
making out said fictitious returns; that said Cahoone prepared said fraudulent 
returns in a room on Gravier, near Baronne street, in the city of New Orleans, 
and made oath to them before J. P. Montamat, at that time Third Justice of the 
Peace for the parish of Orleans, having previously signed tbe names of the com- 
missioners of election thereto as having beeu sworn to before him in the town of 
Delta, parish of Madison, as supervisor of the parish; that said returns, as deli- 
vered to the Returning Board, did not exhibit the true vote cast in Madison par- 
ish at the election aforesaid, but showed a decrease from the actual Republican 
vote cast of about 550 votes, and that said Cahoone merely returned on said 
fabricated returns the vote for national and State officers, and omitted therefrom 
the vote cast for parish officers, in order that such officers might be appointed by 
the Governor, and thus prevent the Republican candidates, who were in reality 
elected, from obtaining their offices. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of Iberville, also a parish largely Re- 
publican, the supervisor of registration, J. L. Tharp, a resident of New Orleans, 

4 



50 

and familiar with the manipulations of elections, finding that a large Republican 
majority had been cast at the election, induced the commissioners of election to 
refuse to sign the returns, alleging intimidation, for the purpose of having the 
returns of election from that parish thrown out by the Eeturning Board, and 
the vote of said parish for all local officers, which was 2239 Republican to 722 
Fusion, was excluded and thrown out by the said board, as expected and intended 
by said Tharp. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of St. Martin the supervisor, 0. Dela- 
houssaye, Jr., knowing that a majority of Republican votes had been cast at the 
election, abandoned his office, leaving one box uncounted, alleging intimidation 
and armed interference of the negroes, in order to have the vote of that parish 
excluded by the Returning Board, as appears by the telegram hereto attached 
and marked CQ. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of St. James the supervisor originally 
appointed, D. F. Melville, beiEg suspected by the Fusion campaign committee of 
favoring some of the Republican candidates, was summarily removed, and J. C. 
Golding, a resident of New Orleans, was appointed in his place, and* that said 
Golding, knowing that the Republican candidates had received a large majority 
of the vote cast at the election, failed to finish counting the vote, abandoning 
three or more of his boxes, and returned to New Orleans with the avowed intent of 
having the entire vote of the parish thrown out on account of intimidation, and 
the Returning Board did so exclude the entire vote of that parish for local 
officers. 

Deponent further states that the consequence of the action of said supervisors 
of registration in the parishes of Madison, Iberville, Terrebonne, St. Martin and 
St. James is shown by a comparison of the number of votes registered and of 
votes cast in 1870 and 1872, as follows: 

Comparative table of statistics of registration and election in 1870 and 1872 in the 
parishes of Madison, Iberville, St. Martin, Terrebonne and St. James: 

00 00 H 00 *2 

.a oi .9^ .2 s 

fe 2 °° £& S* 

pabish. .s > .a °« >*g . 

1 § 1 si . lag 

<*> a "o a a a u -, 

wi ft 'So ftSj ftg'S 

MM « M P3 

Iberville 3,354 1,496 4,036 2,239 2,239 

Madison.*.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 2,120 1,269 2,725 1,756 1,227 

St. James 2,498 1,873 2,723 1,852 843 

St. Martin 1,481 525 1,961 718 

Terrebonne 3,981 1,422 *... 1,593 .... 

Tota l 13,344 6,585 11,445 8,158 4,309 

Thus showing that with an increase of the number of registered voters in these 
parishes (Terrebonne excepted, from which no reports were made to the deponent 
by Stokes), of 1992 voters, the Republican vote, as returned by the Lynch board, 
was 3849 greater than the same vote as counted in joint session of the Fusion 
Legislature, and that the entire Republican vote of two parishes, St. Martin and 
Terrebonne, was not only totally excluded from the returns of the Fusion Return- 
ing Board, but was also excluded in the count of the votes for Governor and 
Lieutenant Governor in joint session of the Fusion Legislature at Odd Fellows' 
Hall, all of which was the natural consequence of the action of the supervisors of 
registration in said parishes, as hereinbefore set forth. 

Deponent further states that in the parishes of Rapides and Natchitoches, in 
which the registration of 1872 was new and complete, in consequence of the for- 



*Not reported. 



51 

mation of the new parishes of Vernon and Red River from their territory, and in 
both of which the supervisors were Fusion candidates for the House of Repre- 
sentatives, the registration reported by them was as follows : 

White. Colored. Total. 

Rapides 1719 1629 3348 

Natchitoches 1517 1833 3350 

As appears from the reports of said supervisors hereto annexed and marked CR, 
CS, and that the returns of election as made by said supervisors, viz: J. G. P. 
Hooe and E. L. Pierson, were as follows: 

Kellogg. McEnerv- 

Yapides 1169 1960 

Natchitoches 550 1250 

Showing manifest frauds in those parishes of about 700 votes in Rapides, and of 
about 1200 in Natchitoches (in favor of the Fusion ticket), as it has been well 
established by the testimony taken before the committee of the United Slates 
Senate, and by other ample evidence, that very few colored men voted the Fusion 
ticket. The manner in which these frauds were accomplished is clearly set forth 
in the report of said Senate committee, pages 306, 307 and 308. 

Deponent further states that in the parish of Webster the supervisor of regis- 
tration, E. C. Bright, in carrying out the instructions received from the depo- 
nent, refused to submit to the inspection of the United States supervisors of elec- 
tion, as is shown by the testimony taken before said Senate committee and to be 
found on page twelve of their report, and the documents attached hereto and 
marked CT, CU, the result of which action was that said supervisor of registra- 
tion made the returns of the election in that parish to the returning board as 977 
for McEnery, against (>22 for Kellos;g, while the report of the United States su- 
pervisors shows a vote of 377 for McEnery, against 824 for Kellogg, a difference 
against the Republican vote cast of 202 votes. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of Morehouse, at poll N°- 4, at which 
a Republican majority was cast, the box was tampered with before it was 
counted, so that when it was opened more ballots were found in the box than 
there were names on the written list required by section eleven of the election 
law, the intention of the supervisor of registration being to have that box thrown 
out and have a small Fusion majority in the parish for the State ticket of some 
eighty-three votes; otherwise there would have been a Republican majority in the 
parish of about the same number. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of Jefferson the box from the poll 
held at Camp Parapet (or Colcord's) was either while en route to the office of the 
supervisor of registration, at the courthouse of said parish, or after having been 
deposited there, opened or otherwise tampered with and fraudulent Fusion 
ballots deposited therein to the number of about 400, to replace an equal number 
of Republican ballots taken out which were known to have been voted, which is 
further shown by the documents hereto annexed and marked CV and CW. 

Deponent further says that in the parish of Claiborne, the supervisor of regis- 
tration, J. E. Scott, being suspected of complicity with the Republican candi- 
dates in that parish and congressional district, was removed from office, and one 
J. H. Simmons appointed to replace him; that said Scott did not turn over to 
said Simmons the records of his office, but that said Simmons did, nevertheless, 
hold the election in the parish of Claiborne without books or other formal evi- 
dence of his official position, and did conduct the said election without poll 
books, poll lists or other necessary blanks required by law to be used, as is shown 
by the document hereunto annexed and marked CW and CWW. 

Deponent further says that in addition to instructing verbally the commis- 
sioners of election for the parish of Orleans, he issued for their guidance the cir- 
cular of instructions hereto annexed and marked CX. 

Deponent further says, that in the parish of Orleans, besides the fraudulent 
and duplicated certificates of registration given to persons to be voted on, in the 
manner already described, duplicate ballot boxes were provided for the different 
■wards, as follows: Two to the third ward; two to the eleventh ward; one to the 
thirteenth ward; one to the fourteenth ward; two to the fourth ward; two to the 



52 

fifth ward ; two to the eighth ward ; one to the fifteenth ward ; labeled and marked 
ready for use in the same manner as those actually used on the day ot election; 
see deposition of W. L. Catlin, hereto attached and marked CZ; with the inten- 
tion of having said boxes filled with a large number of Fusion ballots, and a 
compaiatively small number of Republican ballots, and of substituting them for 
the boxes actually used, in cases where there was reason to suspect that said 
boxes contained a Republican inajoi'ity; aud deponent has reason to believe, and 
does believe, that many, if not all, of said duplicate boxes were used, from cir- 
cumstances which occurred during the night after the election, and during the 
counting of votes at Mechanics' Institute; and the manifest discrepancy between 
the Fusion vote and the Republican vote in the boxes when opened, for instance, 
in the third ward, poll number four, the vote as counted was 384 for McEnery 
against 96 for Kellogg, and there were eighty more ballots in the box than names 
on the written list required by section eleven of the registration law; at poll num- 
ber five, same ward, the vote as counted was 438 for McEnery against 72 for 
Kellogg, a totally disproportionate number for the locality where the poll was 
held. Both of these boxes were counted by the Fusion Returning Board, although 
formal protests were filed in each case by the United States supervisors of elec- 
tion. 

At poll number eight, same ward, which was located in a neighborhood 
densely populated by negroes, the commissioners placed fifty Republican ballots 
in the box after the closing of the polls, so that when couuted there were found 
365 ballots in the box and but 316 names on the written list, and the vote was 
for McEnery 24, for Kellogg 338; that iu consequence of these discrepancies and 
the large majority against their ticket, the Fusion Returning Board excluded the 
count of this box in making their compilation of the returns. 

In the eleventh ward, poll number one, when counted, showed 311 votes for 
McEnery against 40 for Kellogg, although this box was located near the levee, 
where a large number of colored laborers reside; and at poll number five, same 
ward, the vote was for McEnery 306, for Kellogg 106. The count of both these 
boxes was also protested against by the United States supervisors, and the figures 
are totally irreconcilable with the political complexion of any portion of that ward. 

At poll number six, of the same ward, where a majority of Republican votes 
had been cast, additional Republican ballots were put in the box to cruise a dis- 
crepancy between the number of ballots in the box and the number of names on 
the written list, and thus have the vote of that poll thrown out by the Returning 
Board, and that the vote of said box was 115 for McEnery against 200 for Kel- 
logg, and the poll was excluded by the Fusion Returning Board. 

In the thirteenth and fourteenth wards circumstances do not point so clearly 
to the substitution of boxes as in the cases of the two wards above cited, but the 
inference is strong that they were used, as the returns show a large reduction 
from the Republican vote of 1870, and a corresponding or greater increase in the 
Democratic or Fusion vote. 

In the fourth ward, which was largely Republican in 1870, at poll number one, 
located in the immediate vicinity of the sugar sheds and lower steamboat land- 
ing, always thronged with colored laborers, the box contained 315 votes for 
McEnery against t»2 for Kellogg; at poll number eight, same ward, the vote was, 
lor McEnery 189, for Kellogg 94. No notice was given for the location of the last 
poll until the morning of the election, and it was not found by the United States 
supervisors, representing the Republican party, until noon. 

In the fifth ward, also heretofore Republican by large majorities, poll number 
one, as counted, was 350 for McEnery against 118 for Kellogg; and poll number 
nine, same ward, 237 foi. McEnery against 70 for Kellogg. These polls were 
situated at the two extremes of the ward, the former near the levee and French 
Market, always thronged by colored men, and the latter in the rear of the ward. 
where but few persons live, and those principally colored market gardeners. 

In the eighth ward, the box from poll number one, also located near the levee, 
and in the neighborhood of the old Pontchartrain railroad depot and the Port 
Market, contained, for McEnery 298, for Kellogg 24. The box from poll num- 
ber four, same ward, contained, for McEnery 353 votes against 89 for Kellogg, 
and on the close of the polls, when the commissioners of election were bringing 
the box to Mechanics' Institute, the United States supervisor for the Republican 



53 

party was thrown out of the cab, and there is no doubt that the duplicate box 
was then substituted for the original one. 

Deponent further says, that after the receipt of all the ballot boxes of the 
parish of Orleans at the Mechanics' Institute on the night of November 4, 1872, 
he was about to proceed to make the count of the votes in the same manner as 
that in which he had already instructed the supervisors of registration in the 
country parishes to proceed, viz: "To count the electoral and congressional 
first, and then to deny to the United States officials the right of supervision and 
inspection of the count of the ballots for State, parochial and municipal officers," 
and had already caused several boxes to be opened and the counting of ballots 
commenced, when General James Lougstreet presented to him the communica- 
tion hereto attached, and marked CY; that on receipt of said demand he at first 
declined to accede to it, and caused the boxes already opened to be closed aud 
resealed and the counting suspended, but after consultation with prominent 
members of the Fusion party, and several interviews with General Lougstreet 
and others representating the Republican party, he fiully consented to the can- 
ditions demanded, but that he did so for two reasons only, viz: First, that he 
feared armed interference on the part of the United States authorities in the event 
of refusal or non-compliance with the demands or requests made upon him; and 
second, that from his knowledge of the manner in which the registration had 
been conducted nnd his instructions as before narrated had been carried out, as 
well as from his knowledge of the number of fraudulent votes cast for the Fusion 
candidates at the election, and the number of prepared boxes substituted for 
genuine ones, he had so much confidence that the Fusion ticket had carried the 
city by a majority sufficiently large to more than overcome any unforeseen failures 
in the country parishes; therefore, he prelerred to submit Lo the inspection de- 
manded rather than risk a conflict between the State and federal authorities and 
jeopardize the success of his party. 

Deponent further says that during the counting of the votes, which was 
resumed on the morning of November 5, every possible obstruction was thrown 
in the way of the United States supervisors of election and others representing 
the Republican party ; that they were discourteously treated in many instances, 
every advantage taken of them when absent even momentarily, and whenever 
they protested against any proceeding they were told that all protests must be 
made in writing before any attention would be paid to them, and when such 
written protests were filed they were taken possession of by deponent or his 
clerks and assistants aud destroyed, or otherwise made away with, in order to 
prevent the Returning Board from having any knowledge whatever of the filing 
of such protests, and any action on the part of said board detrimental to the 
Fusion interests in consequence thereof; that said United States supervisors and 
other officials were allowed admission into the hall of said Institute only upon 
passes signed by deponent or his chief clerk, and even then were required to 
exhibit their commissions to the policemen on guard at the door for identifica- 
tion; that admission was freely given to candidates for office upon the Fusion 
ticket, and almost invariably denied to Republican candidates, and every other 
possible studied annoyance offered to Republicans and their friends and repre- 
sentatives. 

Deponent further says that in counting the votes of the parish of Orleans, 
assistant supervisors and commissioners of election were instructed, when count- 
ing "scratched" tickets, that whenever the name of a Fusion candidate was 
erased and the name of a Republican candidate substituted therefor, that unless 
the name substituted corresponded letter for letter with the name of the Repub- 
lican candidate for the office voted for, as printed on the straight or regular Re- 
publican ticket, such ballot was not to be credited to the said candidate, but 
tallied as "scattering;" but whenever they found the name of a Republican can- 
didate erased oj scratched and the name of a Fusion candidate substituted, the 
manner of pro&eding was reversed, and the ballot credited to the Fusion candi- 
date, without regard to the initials or orthography ot the name of such candidate, 
as printed on the regular Fusion ticket, and that these instructions were, in the 
majority of instances, thoroughly and systematically carried out. 

Deponent further says that from the facts and statistics before related in this 
deposition, it is shown that the total number of votes gained to the Fusion ticket 



54 

in the parish of Orleans by means of fraudulent manipulation of registration 
papers, voting on the names of dead men, and by the substitution of duplicate 
and fraudulent ballot boxes, amounted to 6737 votes, divided as follows, viz : 
Number of duplicates issued in the names of deceased voters and voted on 

for the Fusion ticket at the election 855 

Number of certificates of registration fraudulently issued in 1870, and of 
certificates of registration surrendered by persons removed from tbe wards 
in which they were registered in 1870 and voted upon for the Fusion ticket 

in 1872 3502 

Number of Fusion ballots contained in boxes substituted for the ones 

actually used at the election, about 3181 

Against Republican ballots placed in same boxes to avert suspicion 801 

Or a fraudulent majority of Fusion votes in said boxes of 2380 

Total given to the Fusion party by frauds 6737 

And that the loss in votes to the Kepublican party by fraudulent means was 
3010, divided as follows : 
Number of names of colored voters erased from the registry by fraudulent 

affidavits without sanction of law 2472 

Number of Republican ballots contained in two boxes thrown out by the 

Fusion board on account of stuffing by the commissioners 538 

Total loss to the Republican party by frauds 3010 

And that in the country parishes, so far as set forth by deponent in the fore- 
going portions of this instrument, the Republican vote was reduced by the 
fraudulent means hereinbefore narrated to the extent of about 9314 votes, divided 
as follows: 

Republican votes excluded by fraud in the parishes of East Baton Rouge, 
West Baton Rouge, St. James and Tangipahoa, consequent upon the 

new registration ordered and made in those parishes 2793 

Republican votes cast but not counted in the parishes of Iberville, Madison, 
St. James, St. Martin and Terrebonne, in consequence of the refusal of 
the supervisors of registration to count the vote, or the abandoning of 

the boxes by said supervisors, about 3849 

Republican votes cast but not returned as counted in the parishes of Natchi- 
toches and Rapides, about 1900 

Loss to Republican vote by fraud and violence in Webster parish, about .... 202 
Loss to Republicans by exclusion of poll four, in Morehouse parish, about. . 170 
Loss to Republicans by exclusion of Camp Parapet poll, parish of Jefferson, 
left bank, about 400 

Total reduction from the actual Republican vote, as shown or estimated 
above 9314 

Deronent further says that on the night of the sixth of December, 1872, his 
office of State Registrar of Voters was forcibly taken possession of by P. B. S. 
Pinchback, then holding possession of the building used as a State House, and 
acting as Governor of Louisiana; that in anticipation of such seizure deponent 
and his clerk and employes had removed from said office such important papers, 
records ami documents as they had time to remove to a place of security, but in 
consequence of the sudden manner in which such seizure was made he was forced 
to leave iu the said office numerous papers, records, documents and memoranda, 
intelligible only to himself or his clerk, bearing upon the subject of frauds com- 
mitted at the general election of November 4, 1872, in parishes other than those 
embraced in this deposition, and also containing details of frauds committed in 
parishes hereinbefore mentioned, for which the figures are expressed approx- 
imately, and he has ascertained that said documents, papers, etc., were accident- 
ally destroyed in the confusion of affairs existing at that time. And deponent 
believes and avers that were those memoranda, papers, etc., now attainable, he 
could exhibit and show further frauds committed in several parishes not herein 
asseverated. Deponent further says that he believes, and has reason to believe, 



55 

and knows that had not the fraudulent practices as above recited been resorted 
to and made use of by persons in the interest of the Fusion party, and for the 
benefit and advantage of said Fusion party as hereinbefore set forth, and had the 
election returns been fairly and properly made by the supervisors throughout the 
State, and had the large Republican parishes which were thrown out unjustly, 
unfairly and for the purpose of reducing the Republican vote, been counted, as 
they should have been, the candidates for presidential electors, members of Con- 
gress and State officers upon the Republican national and State ticket would 
have shown to have been elected by a large majority of the votes cast in the 
State at the election held on the fourth of November, 1872. And deponent further 
says that he believes, has reason to believe, and knows that the Republican 
national and State tickets received a considerable majority of the votes actually 
cast at the election held on the fourth day of November, A. D. 1872, in the State 
of Louisiana. B. P. BLANCHARD. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this second of September, 1873; and I 
hereby certify that the affiant, B. P. Blanchard. was State Registrar of Voters, 
etc., during the years 1870, 1871 and 1872. 

Witness my hand and seal, at the city of New Orleans, on the day first above 
named. F. A. WOOLFLEY, 

United States Commissioner. 

[Note. — The exhibits referred to are very voluminous and are omitted. They 
are mostly originals, and are on file with the depositions.] 



EXHIBIT C. 

Sworn Statement of Walter Sully Long, Chief Clerk of the State Registrar of Voters. 

United States of America, District of Louisiana. — Personally appeared before 
me Walter Sully Long, who, being duly sworn upon his oath, states as follows: 

From March, 1872, to January, 1873, I was chief clerk to B. P. Blanchard, 
then holding the office of State Registrar of Voters for the State of Louisiana. 
In that capacity I was in the fullest confidence of my chief, and was aware of all 
and every transaction of a political nature in the office during the campaign of 
1872. 

The necessity of carrying the election for the Fusion party was frequently a 
matter ot discussion between Blanchard, myself and others, and a plan of opera- 
tions was finally adopted at my suggestion and carried out as follows: 

I. The sextons' monthly returns of burials of persons over the age of twenty- 
one years were carefully compiled by wards, the registration number ascertained 
and noted, and a list made of them. 

II. A thorough examination was made of the registry books of 1870, in order 
to ascertain the number of names of fictitious persons registered in that year. 
In every ward where the persons having control of these false registry papers 
were acting with the Fusion party, these names were used; but in wards where 
the supervisors of 1870 were not acting in harmony with the Fusion party, par- 
ticular care was taken to prevent their using the fraudulent papers, and to detect 
any attempt at so doing. 

III. A system was established requiring all persons who had been registered 
as voters in 1870, and who had subsequently removed, to deliver up their papers 
of that year before receiving certificates of registration in 1872. These were sent 
to the office of the State Registrar of Voters every week, and were carefully sorted 
out by myself and others, and all that showed no evidence of having been ex- 
amined by the United States supervisors of election were set aside to be used by 
repeaters on election day. 

IV. During the ten days preceding the election a list was made out by me of 
the registry numbers and names of the dead, removed and fictitious persons be- 



56 

fore described and given to each assistant supervisor of registration for the city 
wards. 

Two or more persons in each ward, who were to serve as commissioners of elec- 
tion, were set to work making lists of those names upon sheets of paper similar 
to that designed to be used on the day of election in keeping the written list of 
voters required by law at each polling place. 

V. The poll lists were printed, containing the entire registration of both 1870 
and 1872. No erasures were made until the Saturday and Sunday preceding the 
election, when the names that could not be made available for the Fusion cause 
were crossed off in black pencil on the lists for certain polls in each ward and in 
number to correspond with the written lists of names above alluded to. 

These preliminaries having been completed, it was a mere question ot manual 
dexterity on the part of the commissioners of election to get within the box a 
number of ballots to correspond with the names crossed off in black from the 
printed lists and written in advance upon the tally lists. 

The estimate of the number of votes required to carry the election was as fol- 
lows: 

For the first ward, 500; second ward, 500; third ward, 1000; tenth ward, 500; 
eleventh ward, 500; twelfth ward, 250; thirteenth ward, 100; fourteenth ward, 50; 
making a total of 3400 for the up town wards; and for the fourth ward, 300; tilth 
ward, 500; sixth ward, 500; seventh ward, 500; eighth ward, 600; ninth ward, 600; 
fifteenth ward, none; a total of 3000, and an aggregate of 6400; to this must be 
added the number of papers to be voted on by "repeaters," which was estimated 
at 2000. 

VI. The number of fraudulent votes actually counted, and which can be proved 
by own testimony and that of other persons concerned is — ■ 

In the first ward 281 

In the second ward 243 

In the third ward 803 

In the tenth ward 306 

In the eleventh ward 330 

In the twelfth ward 101 

In the thirteenth ward 98 

In the fourteenth ward 26 

Total up town 2188 

In the fourth ward 186 

In the fifth ward 155 

In the sixth werd 336 

In the seventh ward 

In the eighth ward 393 

In the ninth ward 244 

In the fifteenth ward 

1314 

Grand total 3502 

Beyond this the papers given to repeaters were about 2000. I can not at pres- 
ent remember the exact number, but I think that 1400 were given out to be used 
in the First, Fourth and Sixth Municipal Districts, and 600 to be used in the 
Second and Third Districts. 

I further know and can produce, I believe, the men who acted as commissioners 
of election at the polls in each ward where fraudulent votes were cast or counted 
at the general election of November 4, 1872. 

WALTER S LONG. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this fourth day of September, 1873, at New 
Orleans, Louisiana. F. A. WOLFLEY, 

United States Commissioner. 



51 
EXHIBIT E>. 

Sworn Statement of Oscar F. Hunsaker, Chaii man of the Fusion- Warmoth Return- 
ing Board, and Samuel 21. Todd, a member of the same Board. 

[See canvass of Fusion Returns published in Senate Report, pages 81, 82, and 83, 
purporting to have been signed by Hunsaker and Todd. ] 

State of Louisiana, City of New Orleans. — This day personally appeared be- 
fore me, William Giant, United States Commissioner, Samuel M. Todd and 
Oscar F. Hunsaker, residents of the State of Louisiana, who first being duly sworn, 
depose and say: That they were members of the State Senate of the State of 
Louisiana, sitting in the Mechanics' Institute on the ninth day of December, 
1872; that afterward, to wit, on or about the tenth day of December, 1872, said 
deponents left the Senate sitting at the Mechanics' Institute, and uuited with 
the assemblage known as the McEnery Senate, sitting at Lyceum Hall, in the 
City Hall building of the city of New Orleans; that the Senate of the said Mc- 
Enery assemblage proceeded to organize, and that on or about the date last 
named said Senate proceeded to elect a returning board, or board of canvassers, 
who were to correct, canvass and compile the returns of election for State officers, 
presidential electors, etc., under the act approved by H. C. Warmoth, November 
20, 1872; and said deponents, ts wit: S. M. Todd and O. F. Hunsaker, together 
with S. M. Thomas, B. R. Forman and Archibald Mitchell were elected as said 
board ; that the said board proceeded to organize by the election of 0. F. Hun- 
saker, one of said deponents, president thereof; that the said returns were then 
produced from trunks and carpet-bags in a small room, on an upper floor of the 
St. Charles Hotel; that said returns were brought to said room by one O. D. 
Bragdon, who appeared to be in possession of the same; that said returns had 
been opened, compiled and canvassed before they came into the possession of said 
deponents and the other members of the board; that although said deponents did 
carefully examine said returns and made themselves cognizant of the nature of the 
same, and the mode and manner in which said returns were compiled, and the result 
sought to be shown, yet said deponents neither jointly nor separately, nor in any 
way whatever, signed or authorized any person to sign for them the purported 
canvass of returns known in the congressional report on Louisiana affairs as the 
•'Forman returns," dated December 11, 1872, by which returns it was made to 
appear that John McEnery was elected Governor, and that the Fusion State 
ticket was elected; neither did they or neither of them at any time consent or 
agree that said purported canvass was or is correct, or authorize the publication 
of the same in any manner whatsoever; that soon after the meeting of said board 
of canvassers, above referred to, one of said board — to wit: S. M. Thomas — left 
the city, and if he ever resigned as a member of said returning board it was not 
known to either of said deponents, nor did said O. F. Hunsaker, as president of 
said board, ever at any time receive any indication or any communication of the 
resignation or withdrawal of said S. M. Thomas from the said board of canvass- 
ers; and that neither of said deponents ever met or participated in any can- 
vass of said returns after said S. M. Thomas left the city, nor did 
they ever authorize any person or persons to do so for them; said de- 
ponents further state that by the pretended canvass cf said returns as 
published without the consent of said deponents, the returns from the follow- 
ing parishes are shown to have been entirely thrown out, to wit: St. Martin, 
Iberia, Terrebonne, Iberville and St. James; that the said parishes were and are 
well known to be largely Republican, the two parishes of St. James and Iberville 
alone giving more than 2500 Republican majority; that there was no sufficient 
proof or good reason why said parishes should have been omitted; that had the 
vote of said parishes been included in the publication of said purported returns, 
as of right it should have been, it would have added several thousand votes to 
the Republican ticket; and deponents further say that a fair, proper and correct 
canvass of said returns would have shown that William P. Kellogg was elected 
Governor of Louisiana at the election held on the fourth of November, 1872, and 
said deponents verily believe that said William P. Kellogg was elected Governor 
of the State of Louisiana by the actual votes cast at said election. 

OSCAR F. HUNSAKER, 
SAMUEL M. TODD. 



58 

United States of America, District of Louisiana. — On tLe sixth clay of Sep- 
tember, 1873, personally appeared before me, Oscar F. Hnnsaker and Samuel M. 
Todd, known to me as the persons they represent themselves to be, members of 
the Senate of the State of Louisiana, and late members of the so-called Fusion 
board of State canvassers, known and designated in the United States Senate 
report on Louisiana affairs as the "Forman Board," who, being duly sworn, de- 
clared on oath that the facts stated by them in the foregoing affidavit are true 
and correct. 

WILLIAM GRANT, 
United Sates Commissioner. 



EXHIBIT E. 
JOURNAL OE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 

AT THE 

EXTRA SESSION, CONVENED APRIL 14, 1875. 



HOUSE. 

First Day's Proceedings. 

House or Representatives, ? 
New Orleans, April 14, 1875. \ 

Pursuant to the proclamation of the Governor convening the Legislature in 
extra session, the House was called to order, Speaker Hahn presiding. 
The Clerk read the following proclamation: 



NA, } 

375..) 



extra session — proclamation bt the governor. 

State of Louisiana, ' 
Executive Department, 
New Orleaus, March 24, 1875. 

Whereas, the existing condition of public affairs presents, in my judgment, an 
extraordinary occasion within the meaning of article sixty-four of the constitu- 
tion of the State, I, William P. Kellogg, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by 
virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution and the laws enacted there- 
under, do hereby convene the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana to 
meet in extra session at the State House in the city of New Orleans, on Wednes- 
day, the fourteenth day of April, 1875, at the hour of twelve o'clock M. ; and in 
accordance with act No. 19 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, approved 
February 16, 1870, 1 hereby indicate ten days as the length of time for which said 
session shall continue, commencing Wednesday, April 14, as aforesaid, at the 
hour of twelve o'clock M., and ending Saturday, April 24, at the hour of twelve 
o'clock M. And I do further specify the following objects of legislation which 
shall take precedence of all other business which may be brought forward at such 
extra session: 

1. Joint resolution in relation to the adjustment of the political difficulties 
heretofore existing in this State. 

2. Revenues of the State, and the mode of collecting and disbursing the same. 

3. Amendment of the funding law with respect to the number of members 
composing the Funding Board, and with respect to the manner of preventing the 
funding of illegal obligations of the State. 



59 

4. Revenues, financial condition and government of the city of New Orleans. 

5. Relief of the commerce of New Orleans from excessive port charges, fees, 
etc. 

6. To consider the incorporation of the Board of Trade of New Orleans. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the State hereunto attached, this twenty- 
fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-five, 
and of the independence of the United States the ninety-niuth. 

WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
By the Governor: 
P. G. Deslonde, 

Secretary of State. 

The roll was called, and the following members responded to their names: 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Armstead, Butler, Baker, Carville, Crawford, Con- 
naughton, Cousin, Drury, Davidson, Dewees, De Lacey, Dickenson, Demas, 
Floyd, Guichard, Gantt, Grant, Gracien, Hill of Ascension, Hill of Ouachita, 
Hubeau, Honore, Hunsakei 1 , Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson of De Soto, 
Jones of Pointe Coupee, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Martinet, Matthews of 
Tensas, Murrell, Milon, Marie, McAlpine, Parker, Pierson, Poindexter, Piles, 
Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Rochon, Richards, Stewart, Sutton, Southard, 
Snaer, Sartain, Souer, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Wilson, Woods, Wright, Yorke — 61. 

Sixty-one members present and a quorum. 

The following named gentlemen, who were returned by the Board of Return- 
ing Officers as members of the House, and whose seats are not contested, were 
sworn in by the Speaker: 

Messrs. A. A. Maginnis of Orleans, John Young of Claiborne, A. Nunez of 
Vermilion, W. W. Carloss of Webster, James Webb of St. Landry, M. T. Martin 
of Lafayette, D. W. Self of Sabine, G. W. Richardson of Calcasieu, M. Sibilski 
of Orleans, L. A. Wiltz of Orleans, H. C. Mitchell of Claiborne, J. A. DeBlanc 
of Orleans, G. W. R. Bayley of Orleans, Bolivar Edwards of Tangipahoa, C. T. 
Seaman of Orleans, W. H. Pipes of East Feliciana, George W. Dupre of Orleans, 
E. A. Carmouche of St. Landry, G. D. Wells of Livingston, William Magee of 
Washington, E. A. Durr pi' Cameron, R. B. Walters of Catahoula, E. L. Bower 
of Orleans, W. P. Smith of Union, T. J. Johnson of Lafourche, J. Billieu of La- 
fourche, A. D. Lafargue of Avoyelles, Thomas E. Meredith of Caldwell, J. A. 
Blaffer of Orleans, E. D. Estdette of St. Landry, J. L. Matthews of Franklin, R. 
P. Edwards of Richland, Edward Booth of Orleans, Charles Byrne of Orleans, 
B. C. Elliott of Orleans, G. Pascal of Orleans, Charles Roman of Orleans, W. J. 
Hammond of Orleans, G. L. Hall of Orleans, C. L. Walker, of Orleans, Charles 
E. Schenck, of Orleans, John A. Gilmore of Orleans, Charles Kummel of Orleans, 
Jules Aldige of Orleans, W. B. Koontz of Orleans. 

MESSAGE FEOM THE SENATE. 

The Secretary of the Senate announced that the Senate was organized and 
ready for the transaction of business. 

Mr. Souer, of Avoyelles, moved that a committee of three members be 
appointed to wait upon the Governor and inform him that the House was organ- 
ized and ready for the transaction of business, and that the Chief Clerk be 
directed to inform the Senate to the same effect. 

The Speaker appointed the following members as the committee to wait on the 
Governor : 

Messrs. Souer, of Avoyelles; De Blanc, of Orleans, and Hill, of Ouachita. 

Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, offered the following resolution, which was read: 

Whereas, R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; 
James Brice, ot the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schaler, of the 
parish of De Soto; E. Kidd, of the parish of Jacksou; James Jeffries, R. C. Luck- 
ett and G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullom and W. H. 
Keys, of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelly, of the parish of Winn, 
respectively claim that they were elected at the last general election in this State 
to seats in this House from their respective parishes, but that said seats were not 
awarded to them by the Returning Board; therefore, be it 

Besolved, That the Committee on Elections and Qualifications be directed to 
inquire into the validity of said claims respectively and report their conclusions 
to the House at its next sitting. 



60 

Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved for a suspension of the rules so as to con- 
sider the resolution, on which the yeas and nays were demanded, with the fol- 
lowing result: 

Yeas — Booth, Byrne, Burkhardt, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, 
Carville, Connaughton, Carmouche, Cousin, Carlos, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, 
Durr, Davidson, Dewees, DeLacey, Demas, Bolivar Edwards, R. P. Edwards, 
Estilette, Elliott, Floyd, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Hall, Hill of Ascension, Hill 
of Ouachita, Hubean, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johuson of 
Caddo, Johnson of DeSoto, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of 
Pointe Coupee, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Lafargue, Maginnis, Meredith, 
Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, 
Marie, Magee, McAlpine, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Piles, Pipes, Roman, 
Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Smith, Stewart, Sutton, Self, South- 
ard, Snaer, Souer, Seaman, Sibilski, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Voorhies, Vidrine, 
Wiltz, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Wright, Yorke, Young— 94. 

Nays — Armstead, Crawford, Dickenson, Martinet, Sartain — 5. 

Rules suspended. 

Mr. Ray, of East Feliciana, raised the following point of order: 

That under rule thirty-four, governing the House, the Committee on Elections 
and Qualifications appointed at the last regular session does not lie over, and 
that it has no power to act according to the resolution. 

The Speaker ruled the point of order as not being well taken. 

Mr. Murrell, of Madison, moved the previous question on the adoption of the 
resolution . 

The main question was ordered and the resolution adopted. 

The Speaker laid before the House the following communication, which was 
read and referred to the Committee on Elections and Qualifications: 

Clerk's Office, "i 

Honse of Representatives of the Uoired States, > 

Washington, D. C, March 8, 1875.) 

Sie — I have the honor to inclose a certified copy of resolutions adopted by the 
House of Representatives at its late session respecting affairs in Louisiana. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

edward Mcpherson, 

Clerk House of Representatives of the United States. 

Hon. M. Hahn, Speaker House of Representatives of Louisiana, New Oi leans, Lou- 
isiana. 

Forty-third Congress, second session, Congress of the United States, in the 
House of Representatives, March 1, 1875: 

Mr. George F. Hoar submitted the following, which was agreed to: 

Whereas, Both branches of the Legislature of Louisiana have requested the 
special committee of this House to investigate the circumstances attending the 
election and returns thereof in that State for the year 1874 ; and 
NINE8 

Whereas, Said committee have unanimously reported that the Returning Board 
of that State, in canvassing and compiling said returns and promulgating the 
result, wrongfully applied an erroneous rule of law, by reason whereof persons 
were awarded seats in the House of Representatives of Louisiana to which they 
were not entitled, and persons entitled to seats were deprived of them; 

Resolved, That it is recommended to the House of Representatives of Louisiana 
to take immediate steps to remedy said injustice, and to place the persons right- 
fully entitled in their seats. 

Resolved, That William Pitt Kellogg be recognized as the Governor of the State 
of Louisiana until the end of the term cf office fixed by the constitution of that 
State. 

Attest: EDWARD McPHERSON, Clerk. 

Mr. Stewart, of Tensas, moved that a committee of three be appointed to wait 
upon the Governor to request him to communicate to the House the character 
and nature of the award made by the congressional committee. 

Pending the motion the House was adjourned until to-morrow at twelve 
o'clock M., on motion of Mr. Dewees of Red River. 

WILLIAM VIGERS, Chief Clerk. 



61 

Second Day's Proceedings. 

House of Representatives, ? 
New Orleans, April 15, 1875. \ 

The House met pursuant to adjournment. 

Speaker Hahn in the chair. 

The roll was called and the following members answered to their names: 

Speaker Hahn and Messrs. Aldige, Armstead, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, 
Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, Carville, Crawford, Connaughton, Carmouche, 
Carlos, Cousin, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, Durr, Davidson, Dewees, DeLacey, 
Dickenson, Demas, Boliv&r Edwards, K. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Floyd, 
Guichard, Grant, Gantt, Gracien, Gilmore, Hall, Hill of Ascension, Hill of Oua- 
chita, Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, 
Johnson of DeSoto, Johnaon of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of Pointe 
Coupee, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisse, Lafargue, Maginnis, 
Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, 
Milon, Marie, Magee, McAlpine, Martinet, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Poin- 
dexter, Piles, Pipes, Roman, Richardson, Randall, Raby, Richards, Ridgely, 
Rochon, Ray, Smith, Stewart, Sutton, Self, Southard, Snaer, Sartain, Souer, 
SeamaD, Sibilski, Schenck, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Walker, Wiltz, Wilson, 
Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Wright, Yorke, Young— 107. 

One hundred and seven members present and a quorum. 

The reading of the journal was dispensed with and it was adopted. 

The following communication was read: 

To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: 

At the regular session of the General Assembly, I was seated as a member of 
this House from the parish of St. Landry, subject to contestation. I was induced 
to take my seat because I thought there were such irregularities in the St. Lan- 
dry election as entitled me to it; because many of my friends desired me to do 
so, and because I thought St. Landry ought to have at least one Representative 
in the House. I intended at the time to remain, or withdraw, according to cir- 
cumstances. 

Since the adjournment of the regular session, the committee to whom was 
referred the Louisiana troubles have made an award as the baais of a final ad- 
justment. My remaining in the Homse might prove an impediment to the har- 
monious executiou of this adjustment, aud I do not wish to be an obstacle to its 
success. 

I therefore beg leave to withdraw from membership in this House in favor of 
the Hon. Yves Vidrine, whose election was recognized by the Returning Board. 
Very respectfully, 

ELBERT GANTT. 

Mr. Pierson moved that the resignation of Mr. Gantt be accepted. 

Carried. 

Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved that Mr. Vidrine be seated. 

KEPOKTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES. 

The Committee on Elections and Qualifications submitted the following report, 
which was received: 

Committee on Elections and Qualifications, ) 
New Orleans, April 15, 1875. £ 

To the Honorable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: 

Your Committee on Elections and Qualifications, to whom was referred the 
following resolution, viz: 

Whereas, R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; 
James Brice, of the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schuler, of the 
parish of De Soto; E. Kidd, of the parish of Jackson; James Jeffries, R. C. Luck- 
ett and G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullum and W. H. 
Keys, of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelly, of the parish of Winn, 
respectfully claim that they were elected at the last general election in this State 
to seats in this House from their respective parishes, but that said seats were not 
awarded them by the Returning Board; therefore, be it 



62 

Resolved, That the Committee on Elections and Qualifications be directed to 
inquire into the validity of said claims respectively, and report their conclusions 
to the House at its next sitting. 

Beg leave to report that said R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, James Brice, J. 
F. Scales, Charles Schuler, E. E. Kidd, James Jeffries, R. C. Luckett, G. W. 
Stafford, Edward McCullum, W. H. Keys and George A. Kelley are respectively 
entitled to seats in the House of Representatives, by them respectively claimed 
from their said respective parishes, and that the members now occupying seats 
in the House, viz: Joseph Connaughton, William Crawford and John De Lacy, 
of the parish of Rapides; George Drury and R. Poindexter, of the parish of 
Assumption; J. J. Johnson and E. S. Tyler, of the parish of De Soto; F. Marie 
and F. R. Wright, of the parish of Terrebonne, and Winfield Hood, of the parish 
of Jackson, are not entitled to the seats now held by them. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W. G. LANE, Chairman; 

L. W. BAKER, 

P. JONES YORKE, 

E. L. BOWER, 

J. E. PARKER, 

H. RABY, 

G H. HILL. 

Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved the adoption of the report, and called for 
the previous question thereon. 

On which tlie yeas and nays were demanded, with the following result: 

Yeas — Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Baker. Billieu. Car- 
mouche, Carloss, Dupre, DeBlance, Drury, Durr, Dewees, Demas, Bolivar Ed- 
wards, R. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Guichard, Grant, Gracieu, Gilmore, Hall, 
Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Hunsaker, Jourdain, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson 
of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell. 
Levisee, Lafargue, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Mat- 
thews of Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, McAlphine, Magee, Nunez, Pascal, 
Parker, Pierson, Poindexter, Piles, Pipes, Roman, Richards, Richardson, 
Rochon, Randall, Ridgely, Raby, Smith, Stewart, Self, Snaer, Souer, Seaman, 
Sibilski, Schenck, Tyler, Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Walker, Wiltz, Wlison, 
Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, Yorke, Young— 85. 

Nays — Armstead, Butler, Carville, Crawford, Cousin, Davidson, DeLacey, 
Dickenson, Floyd, Hill of Ouachita, Johnson of De Soto, Jones of Pointe 
Coupee, Martinet, Marie, Ray, Sutton, Southard, Satain — 18. 

Carried. 

The main question was ordered. 

On the adoption ot the report the yeas and nays were ordered, with the follow- 
ing result: 

Yeas— Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Baker, Billieu, Car- 
mouche, Cousin, Carloss, Dupre, DeBlanc, Drury, Durr, Dewees, Demas, Boliv«x 
Edwards, R. P. Edwards, Estilette, Elliott, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Gilmore, 
Hall, Hubeau, Hill of Ascension, Hunsaker, Hammond, Honore, Jourdain, John- 
son of De Soto, Johnson of Caddo, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, 
Jones of Pointe Coupee, Kountz, Kummel, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, La- 
fargue, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Tensas, Matthews of Franklin, 
Martin, Murrell, Milon, Magee, McAlpine, Nunez, Pascal, Parker, Pierson, Poin- 
dexter, Piles, Pipes, Raby, Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Roman, Rochon, 
Richards, Smith, Stewart, Self, Snaer, Souer, Schenck, Seaman, Sibilski, Tyler, 
Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Walker, Wiltz, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Wells, Webb, 
Wright, Yorke, Young — 90. 

N a y S — Armstead, Butler, Carville, Crawford, Davidson, DeLacey, Dickenson, 
Floyd, Hill of Ouachita, Martinet, Marie, Ray, Sutton, Southard, Sartain— 15. 

Carried. 

Mr. Matthews, of Tensas, moved to reconsider the vote whereby the report was 
adopted, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. 

Carried. . 

The following named gentlemen were sworn in as Representatives of their re- 
spective parishes: 



63 

Messrs. R. R. Beasley and E. F. X. Dugas, of the parish of Assumption; James 
Brice, of the parish of Bienville; J. F. Scales and Charles Schuler, of the parish 
of De Soto; E. Kidd. of the parish of Jackson; James Jeffries, C. W. Luckett and 
G. W. Stafford, of the parish of Rapides; Edward McCullom and W. H. Keys, 
of the parish of Terrebonne, and George A. Kelley, of the parish of Winn. 

Under a suspension of the rules, Mr. Young, of Claiborne, introduced House 
bill No. 1, joint resolution relative to the recognition of the Kellogg government, 
which was placed on its first reading. 

The constitutional rules being suspended, the bill was read a second time and 
considered as being engrossed. 

Under a further suspension of the constitutional rules the bill underwent its 
third reading. 

On its final passage the yeas and nays were demanded, with the following 
result : 

Yeas — Armstead, Bayley, Blaffer, Bower, Butler, Baker, Billieu, Brice, Beas- 
ley, Carmoucbe, Cousin, Carloss, DeBlanc, Dugas, Durr, Dewees, Dickenson, 
Demas, R. P. Edwards, Estillette, Floyd, Guichard, Grant, Gracien, Hall, Hill 
of Ascension, Bill of Ouachita, Hubeau, Honore, Hammond, Jourdain, Johnson 
of Caddo, Johnson of Lafourche, Jones of Lincoln, Jones of Pointe Coupee, 
Jeffries, Kidd, Kelley, Koontz, Keys, Keating, Lane, Lowell, Levisee, Lafargue, 
Luckett, Maginnis, Meredith, Mitchell, Matthews of Franklin, Matthews of 
Tensas, Martin, Murrell, Milon, Magee, McAlpine, Martinet, McCullum, Nunez, 
Parker, Pierson, Piles, Pipes, Richardson, Randall, Ridgely, Ray, Raby, Rich- 
ards, Rochon, Smith, Sutton, Self, Snear, Souer. Seaman, Sibilski, .Scales. Staf- 
ford, Schuler, Triplet, Thomas, Vidrine, Wilson, Woods, Walters, Webb, Yorke 
Young— 89. 

Nays — Aldige, Booth, Byrne, Carville, Dupre, Davidson, Bolivar Edwards, Gil- 
more, Kummel, Pascal, Roman, Stewart, Southard, Sartain, Schenck, Walker, 
Wiltz, Wells— 18. 

The bill was finally passed, its title adopted, and it was ordered to be sent to 
the Senate for concurrence. 

Mr. Young, of Claiborne, moved for a reconsideration of the vote taken on the 
final passage of the bill, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the 
table. 

Carried. 



SENATE. 

First Day's Session. 

Senate Chamber, ) 
New Orleans, April 14, 1875. $ 

In pursuance with the following proclamation, the members of the Senate, a 
branch of the General Assembly of Louisiana, met at the Senate Chamber in 
New Orleans: 

PROCLAMATION BY THE GOVERNOE. 



NA, ) 
t. [ 

375.) 



• State of Louisiana, 

Executive Department, 
New Orleans, March 24, 1875. 

Whereas, the existing condition of public affairs presents, in my judgment, an 
extraordinary occasion within the meaning of article sixty-four of the constitu- 
tion of the State, I, William P. Kellogg, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by 
virtue of the power in me vested by the constitution and the laws enacted there- 
under, do hereby convene the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana to meet 
in extra session, at the State House, in the city of New Orleans, on Wednesday, 
the fourteenth day of April, 1875, at the hour of twelve o'clock M. , and in ac- 
cordance with act No. 19 of the General Assembly of Louisiana, approved Feb- 
ruary 16, 1870, I hereby indicate ten days as the length of time for which said 
session shall continue, commencing Wednesday, April 14, as aforesaid, at the 
hour of twelve o'clock M., and ending Saturday, April 24, at the hour of twelve 
o'clock M. And I do further specify the following objects of legislation which 



64 

shall take precedence of all other business which may be brought forward at 
such extra session: 

1. Joint resolution in relation to the adjustment of the political difficulties 
heretofore existing in this State. 

2. Revenues of the State and the mode of collecting and disbursing the same. 

3. Amendment of the funding law with respect to the number of members 
composing the Funding Board and with respect to the manner of preventing the 
funding of illegal obligations ot the State. 

4. Revenues, financial condition and government of the city of New Orleans. 

5. Relief of the commerce of New Orleans from excessive port charges, fees, 
etc. 

6. To consider the incorporation of the Board of Trade of New Orleans. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the State hereunto attached, this twenty- 
fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and seventy-five, 
and of the independence of the United States the ninety-ninth. 

WILLIAM P. KELLOGG. 
By the Governor: 

P. G. Deslonde, Secretary of State. 

At 12 M. the Senate was called to order by the Hon. C. C. Antoine, Lietenant 
Governor of the State and President of the Senate. 

The roll of the Senate having been called, showed the following: 

Present — Messrs. Allain, Anderson, Blackburn, Blunt, Breaux, Brewster, 
Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, Crozier, Detiege, Eustis, Gla, George, Green, Grover, 
Harper, Kelso, Kelly, Masicot, Ogden, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, 
Twitchell, Weber, White, Wharton, Whitney, Young — 31. 

Absent — Messrs. Alexander, Dumont, Herwig, Landry, Sypher — 5. 

The President announced that there was a quorum present. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Tarlton. 

The foregoing proclamation was then read. 

On motion of Mr. Allain, the Secretary was instructed to inform the House of 
Representativeslthat the Senate was organized and ready for business. 

On motion of Mr. Whitney, the President appointed the following Senators, 
to wit: Messrs. Whitney, Cage and White, to inform the Governor of the State of 
the complete organization of the Senate in extra session convened, and that the 
Senate was ready to receive from him any communication his excellency might 
desire to make. 

The Senate committee, after waiting upon the Governor, reported that they 
attended to the duties assigned them, and that his excellency informed the Sen- 
ate that he would send in his messages hereafter. 



Fourth Day's Session. 

Senate Chamber, ) 
New Orleans, April 17, 1874. ) 

The Senate met in accordance with adjournment, and was called to order by 
Hon. C. C. Antoine, Lieutenant Governor of the State and President of the Sen- 
ate. 

On call of the roll the Senators were as follows : 

Present — Messrs. Anderson, Blunt, Burch, Brewster, Cage, Chadbourn, Cro- 
zier, Eustis, George, Gla, Greene, Grover, Harper, Kelly, Landry, Masicot, Og- 
den, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Weber, White, Wharton, 
Young — 26. 

Absent — Messrs. Alexander, Allain, Blackburn, Breaux, Detiege, Dumont, 
Herwig, Kelso, Twitchell, Whitney — 10. 

Prayer by the Rev. Charles Dardis. 

The Secretary commenced to read the journal, aud, on motion, the further 
reading was dispensed with. The journal was corrected and adopted. 

******** 

Mr. Cage, as a question of privilege, moved that the case concerning the sena- 
torial seat of his colleague, the Hon. Oscar Crozier, be referred to the Committee 
on Contested Elections, as his colleague desired a full investigation of the question. 



65 



Upon the motion of Mr. Bnrch the motion of Mr. Cage, by consent, was 
amended as to read : "' \ 1Q award concerning said seat" be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Elections, witli nstruct i° ns to report immediately as to the right »f Mr. 
Goode to said seat. 



5 



SPECIAL REPORT. 

Mr. Allain, chairman of the Committee on Elections, submitted the following 
as a privileged report: 

Committee on Elections and Qualifications, ? 
New Orleans, April 17, 1875. \ 
To the Honorable President and Members of the Senate: 

In the matter of the contest of F. S. Goode to a seat in the Senate from the 
eighth senatorial district of the State of Louisiana, referred to your Committee 
on Elections, your committee are of opinion that said F. S. Goode is entitled to 
said seat, and recommend that said F. S. Goode be sworn in as Senator from 
said district. Very respectfully, 

THEOPHILE T. ALLAIN, Chairman; 
A. J. SYPHER, 
E. L. WEBER, 
WILLIAM HARPER. 
**** * * * * * 

Mr. Blunt asked leave to make a written minority report on Monday next. 
The Senate refused. 

On call of the yeas and nays the Senate voted to adopt the majority report by 
the following vote: 

Yeas — Allain, Breaux, Brewster, Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, Dumont, Eustis, 
George, Gla, Greene, Grover, Herwig, Harper, Kelly, Kelso, Landry, Masicot, 
Ogden, Pollard, Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Weber, White, Whitney, 
Young— 28. 

Nays — Blackburn, Blunt, Wharton — 3. 

Absent and not voting — Alexander, Anderson, Crozier, Detiege, Twitchell — 5. 

The President declared that the Senate had accorded the seat of the eighth 
senatorial district to Hon. F. S. Goode. 

Mr. Burch moved that Mr. Goode be invited to take the required oath and take 
his seat in tli6 Senate. 

Adopted. 

Mr. Goode was escorted to the President's desk by Messrs. Cage, Robertson 
and Burch. and, after taking the required oath, took his seat in the Senate. 

Mr. Robertson called up House joint resolution No. 1, relative to the recogni- 
tion of the Kellogg government. 

The bill was read the first time. 

The constitutional rule was suspended by a four-fifths vote and the bill read 
the second time. 

The bill was adopted on second reading. 

The constitutional rule was suspended by a four-fifths vote, the bill read the 
third time, and finally adopted, with its title, on the call of the yeas and nays, 
by the following vote: 

Yeas— Allain, Blackburn, Blunt, Breaux, Brewster, Burch, Cage, Chadbourn, 
Dumont, Eustis, Gla, Goode, Greene, Grover, Harper, Kelso, Masicot, Pollard, 
Robertson, Stamps, Steven, Sypher, Twitchell, Weber, White, Whitney, 
Young— 27. 

Nays — George, Ogden, Wharton — 3. 

Absent and not voting — Alexander, Anderson, Detiege, Herwig, Kelly, Lan- 
dry — 6. 

Mr. Whitney moved to adjourn until Monday, April 19. 

The Senate voted to adjourn. 

The President declared that the Senate stood adjourned to meet at 12 M., Mon- 
day, April 19, 1875. P. E. BECHTEL, 

Secretary of the Senate. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



66 



EXHIBIT F. ■■■¥HSr!BiS I 

014 544 674 ' 
ACT No. 1. EXTRA. SESSION. 

Joint resolution relative to the recognition of the Kellogg government. 

Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, That said Assembly, 
without approving the same, will not disturb the present State government, 
claiming to have been elected in 1872, known as the Kellogg government, or seek 
to impeach the Governor for any past official acts, and that henceforth we will 
accord to said Governor all necessary and legitimate support in maintaining the 
laws and in advancing the peace and prosperity of the people of this State, and 
that the House of Representatives as to its members as constituted under the 
award of George F. Hoar, W. Wheeler, W. P. Frye, Samuel L. Marshall, Clark- 
son N. Potter, Charles Foster and William Walter Phelps, shall remain without 
change, except by resignation or death of members until a new general election, 
and that the Senate as herein recognized shall also remain unchanged, except so 
far as that body shall make changes on contest. 

(Signed) E. D. ESTILETTE, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
(Signed) C. C. ANTOINE, 

Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate. 
Approved April 21, 1875. 

(Signed) WILLIAM P. KELLOGG, 

Governor of the State of Louisiana. 
A true copy: 

N. Durand, 

Assistant Secretary of State. 



7 



375" 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 544 674 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



